GIFT   OF 


T 


//  /V  ; 

ft       ^AW^«^ 


/     /7 


SHAKESPEARE 

THE 

PERSONAL  PHASE 


The  Stratford  Bust 


The   Droeshout   Engraving 


The    Presentment   of   the   Two   Discrepant    (hemispherric) 
Shakespeares 


SHAKESPEARE 

THE 

PERSONAL  PHASE 


BY 

WILLIAM   HALL   CHAPMAN 

TWENTY  ILLUSTRATIONS 


COPYRIGHTED,  1920 

BY    THE    AUTHOR 
W.    H..  CHAPMAN 


4.1C427 


um  of 
uf  mg 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

"Shakespeare"  "Shake-Speare"  "Shak- 
spere"  "Shaksper."  The  name  is  spelled  sev- 
eral ways.  In  this  work  I  find  it  convenient 
to  write  the  name  Shakspere  where  I  am  writ- 
ing about  authenticated  matter  of  fact,  in  no 
way  connected  with  Plays  or  Poems,  and 
"Shakespeare"  where  I  am  speaking  of  the  su- 
preme dramatist  and  poet  of  our  modern 
world,  whomsoever  he  was. 

The  spelling  of  the  name  involves  no  as- 
sumption as  to  authorship. 

In  quotations  I  follow  the  originals. 

I  have  employed  the  descriptive  term 
"Stratfordian"  merely  to  point  out  to  those 
who  hold  that  William  Shakspere  of  Strat- 
ford, was  the  author  of  the  Plays  and  Poems, 
without  disparagement  to  any  or  all  of  those 
who  hold  such  belief. 

I  have  also  given  some  account  of  the  con- 
spicuous events  connected  with  the  literary 
history  of  England,  which  took  place  in  the 
Elizabethan  age;  and  likewise  considerable 
prominence  to  the  resourceful  and  irrepress- 


XIII 


XIV  PREFATORY  NOTE 

ible  personalities  of  Ben  Jonson,  Robert 
Greene  and  George  Chapman,  the  three  Eliz- 
abethan poets  now  most  conspicuously  in  the 
midst  of  Shakespearean  criticism,  showing 
their  traits  of  mind  and  personal  phase. 

Personality  is  the  only  thing  about  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford,  which  the  researches 
of  inquirers  have  not  exhausted,  as  is  shown 
by  the  discovery  of  new  things  about  him 
which  the  inquirers  are  unearthing,  but  which 
his  conventional  biographers  do  not  care  to 
disclose  unless  the  fresh  views  of  things  ac- 
cord with  their  bias  or  prejudice. 

You  have  never  really  known  a  man  until 
you  have  seen  all  sides  of  him;  in  fact,  the 
most  engaging  inquiry  for  the  human  race  is 
the  particular  man. 

The  writer  has  endeavored  to  perform  his 
task  with  freedom  from  bias,  both  in  the  nar- 
rative and  criticism,  and  does  not  hesitate  to 
affirm  that  a  detailed  statement  of  the  precise 
circumstances  under  which  the  "cursed- 
blessed"  epitaph  was  chiseled  on  William 
Shakspere's  tomb  is  essential  in  order  to  pre- 
sent the  man  as  he  is  disclosed  by  the  results 
of  the  long  struggle,  from  the  autumn  of  1614 
to  the  winter  of  1618,  with  the  corporation  of 


PREFATORY  NOTE  XV 

Stratford-on-Avon,  over  the  enclosure  of  the 
common  fields  on  the  outskirts  of  the  town. 

Nothing  is  included  in  the  volume  which 
cannot  be  readily  traced  by  reference  to  the 
Miscellaneous  Documents  in  the  Archives  of 
the  Stratford  Corporation,  (Wheler  Collec- 
tion Stratford-on-Avon),  "Camden  Society 
Papers."  The  new  documentary  information 
lately  discovered  among  the  Belvoir  papers 
and  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  also  the 
standard  works  on  the  drama  and  obvious 
sources  in  literature  and  history  of  the  Eliza- 
bethan Age. 

It  is  possible  that  through  inadvertency  I 
have  not  marked  all  passages  which  are  not 
original  or  new,  by  inverted  commas. 

The  present  writer  has  endeavored  to  keep 
out  of  the  old  rutted  pathway  of  conventional 
biography,  based  upon  Spurious  tradition, 
and  has  sought  to  blend  interest  with  instruc- 
tion. And  in  giving  to  his  account  a  fresh 
and  pleasing  arrangement.  W.  H.  C. 

Los  Angeles,  California 


CONTENTS 


PART  ONE 

Page 
Prefatory  Note        --------        xiii 

I.  Facts  About  Shakespeare  and  Their  Significance      -          3 

PART  TWO 

II.  An  Account  of  the  True  Personality  of  the  Man 

William     Shakspere     of     Stratford-on-Avon,     as 
Shown  by  the  Recorded  Facts  of  His  Life      -      -      101 

PART  THREE 

III.  Shake-speare  Shakespeare  The  Literary  Aspect    -      179 

PART  FOUR 

IV.  Shakespeare  the  Master-Mind  with  Some  Account 

of  Several  Elizabethan  Authors  -      241 

Ben  Jonson  and  Shakespeare      -------      941 

Who  Was  Shake-Scene?  (the  object  of  Robert  Greene's 

censure)       ----------      281 

"That  Old  Man  Eloquent"  (George  Chapman)— "A  bet- 
ter spirit" 372 

INDEX 395 


XVII 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

THE     STRATFORD     BUST— THE     DROESHOUT 

ENGRAVING         -----        Frontispiece 

THE    HEM1SPHERED   PRESENTMENT   OF   TWO 

DISCREPANT  SHAKESPEARES       -       Frontispiece 

AN  EXACT  REPRODUCTION  OF  THE  ENTRY  IN 
THOMAS  GREENE.'S  DIARY  ON  THE  23RD 
DECEMBER,  1614  -------  48a 

PORTRAIT  OF  THOMAS  GREENE      -      -      -      -        63 

SHAKSPERE  EPITAPH       -------        33 

THE  GROUND  BEFORE  LONDON  WAS  BUILT    -        76a 

FIRST  PAGE  OF  ORIGINAL  EDITION  OF  HAM- 
LET ---------  I76a 

SHAKESPEARE  IN  UMBRA        -    *    -      -        -        -      1766 

AN  EMBLEM  IN  ART,  SCIENCE  AND  LITERA- 
TURE -  -  ----- 

BEN  JONSON        -------- 

THE      POETS'      CORNER— SPENSER,      MILTON 

AND  BEN  JONSON         -----      280a 

WILLIAM  KEMP  DANCING  THE  MORRIS      -      -      327 

A  GROUP  OF  LONDON  AUTHORS  OF  THE  XVII     100 
CENTURY -      2806 

AUTOGRAPH  OF  QUEEN  ELIZABETH      -      -      -      366 
CRESCENT  ARMS  OF  CHAPMAN        -      -      -      -      372a 
PORTRAIT  OF  GEORGE  CHAPMAN        -       -        -      386a 

FACSIMILE  RECEIPT  FOR  40S.  PAID  FOR  A 
"PASTORAL  ENDING  IN  A  TRAGEDY" 
FROM  CHAPMAN  TO  PHILIP  HENSLOWE  388a 

CHAPMAN'S  TOMB  IN  ST.  GILES  CHURCH    -    -      394 

XIX 


TO  THE  READER 

"Pray  thee,  take  care,  that  tak'st  my  book  in 
hand, 

To  read  it  well,  that  is  to  understand." 

— Ben  Jonson 


PART  I 

FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE" 
AND  THEIR  SIGNIFICATION 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE" 
AND   THEIR    SIGNIFICATION. 

I. 

E  believe  that  if  "the  greatest  genius  of 
our  world"  were  now  living  he  would 
wish  to  be  known  as  he  was,  so  as  to  qualify  for 
identification  with  the  person  who  wrote  the 
immortal  "Plays."  There  is  only  one  cele- 
brated man  in  history  called  Homer,  about 
whom,  in  connection  with  his  reputed  literary 
work  there  is  so  little  known,  or  concerning 
whom  there  is  so  great  diversity  of  opinion 
among  persons  eminent  in  many  walks  of  life. 
"Paint  me  as  I  am,"  said  Oliver  Cromwell, 
shaking  Sir  Peter  Lely,  the  artist,  roughly  by 
the  shoulder.  "If  you  leave  out  the  scars  and 
wrinkles  I  will  not  pay  you  a  shilling."  And 
there  on  canvas  in  the  Pitti  Gallery  it  is,  a 
present  from  the  many-sided  and  wondrous 
Cromwell  to  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany. 
The  stern,  rough  face  is  marked  with  every 
scar,  wart  and  seam  with  nature,  civil  strife 
or  anxiety,  public  care  or  authority,  had  fea- 
tured in  the  king  uncrowned. 


SHAKICSPEAEE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 


But  have  we  adequate  materials  which 
show  Shakespeare  as  he  was?  We  cannot 
build  a  biography  of  the  person  who  wrote 
the  "Plays"  without  literary  material.  Hith- 
erto the  antiquarians  have  failed  to  unearth 
facts  which  contribute  to  our  understanding 
or  appreciation  of  Shakespeare.  The  ma- 
terial in  the  Public  Record  Office  and  Munic- 
ipal Archives  involve  no  assumption  whatever 
as  to  authorship,  except  in  so  far  as  the  ab- 
sence of  literary  facts  tend  to  disprove  the 
claim  set  up  for  the  Stratford  player.  They 
are  the  primitive  and  authoritative  docu- 
ments and  may  be  always  relied  upon  as  an 
unbiased  record  of  fact  unmixed  with  the 
chaff  of  fiction,  legend  and  spurious  tradition. 

William  Shakepere  of  Stratford  is  indeed 
an  anomaly  for  there  is  no  other  person  asso- 
ciated with  literature  whose  biography  is  so 
completely  devoid  of  authenticated  literary 
facts ;  whose  activities,  so  far  as  known,  if  not 
mean  are  surely  not  creditable,  to  a  man  of 
letters.  Partly  from  idolatry  of  the  author  of 
the  "Plays"  facts  are  omitted  or  distorted  by 
the  conventional  biographers  of  Shake- 
speare, which  in  any  way  reflect  on  their 
idol,  except  where  the  advantage  to  the  sub- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  5 

ject  of  their  memoir  seems  to  outweigh  the 
opprobrium. 

We  have  adequate  material  which  shows 
Ben  Jonson,  Beaumont,  Chapman,  Spencer, 
Drayton  and  other  Elizabethan  poet  as  they 
were.  And  the  immortal  author  of  the  "Plays" 
had  the  same  opportunity  but  did  not  choose 
to  make  himself  known  as  he  was. 

Unfortunately  for  the  biographers  who  had 
not  enough  material  on  which  to  build  a  biog- 
raphy of  Shakespeare,  the  author  of  "Rich- 
ard II"  was  not  discovered  at  the  time  of  the 
Essex-Southampton  Conspiracy.  In  1601,  on 
the  afternoon  of  the  day  preceding  the  insur- 
rection, Sir  Gilly  Merrick,  one  of  the  conspir- 
ators, had  procured  to  be  played  as  an  encour- 
agement to  rebellion,  the  play  of  the  deposing 
of  "Richard  the  Second."  The  actor  who 
provided  the  play  was  Augustine  Phillips,  a 
member  of  the  Globe  Theatre,  the  same  per- 
son who  bequeathed  by  his  Will  in  1605, — "to 
my  fellow  William  Shakespere  a  thirty  shil- 
ling piece  of  gould."  He  was  also  one  of 
twenty-three  persons  who,  with  William 
Shakespere  of  Stratford,  was  charged  with  ob- 
taining "heraldic  honours  by  fradulent  rep- 
resentation." 


6  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

It  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  "Age  of 
Shakespeare"  was  the  age  of  craft,  of  crime, 
of  grief  and  judicial  cruelties.  The  Court  of 
High  Commission,  the  Star  Chamber  and  the 
Privy  Council,  were  names  of  fear  and  terror. 
The  simplest  expression  was  liable  to  be  re- 
garded as  seditious  and  treasonable,  subject- 
ing the  writer  before  conviction,  to  imprison- 
ment and  torture. 

In  1599,  Sir  John  Heywood  was  impris- 
oned and  threatened  with  torture  for  the  dedi- 
cation to  Essex  of  a  history  of  the  First  Part 
of  the  Life  and  Reign  of  "King  Henry  IV," 
which  contained  an  account  of  the  deposition 
of  "Richard  II."  Ben  Jonson  and  Samuel 
Daniel  were  severely  censured  by  authority 
for  supposed  expressions  of  sympathy  with 
Essex,  contained  in  "Sejanus"  and  "Philatas." 
Queen  Elizabeth  denounced  the  performance 
of  the  play  "Richard  II,"  as  an  "act  of  trea- 
son." The  Queen's  fears  were  well  grounded 
for  not  long  before  the  Essex  rebellion,  an 
edict  (1570)  was  issued  by  a  foreign  potentate 
inciting  her  subjects  to  rebellion.  When  Peter 
Lombard,  the  Keeper  of  the  Records  in  the 
Tower,  was  showing  Her  Majesty  his  rolls,  on 
coming  to  the  reign  of  "Richard  II,"  the 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  7 

Queen  suddenly  exclaimed:  "I  am  'Richard 
II,'  known  ye  not  that?"  She  told  Lombard 
how  the  tragedy  "was  played  forty  times  in 
open  streets  and  houses"  at  the  time  of  the  Es- 
sex insurrection.  Loyalty  was  intentionally 
undermined  and  the  assassination  of  the 
Queen  was  countenaced.  If  the  fiery,  pas- 
sionate daughter  o  f  "the  pontiff-king." 
(Henry  VIII—)  "the  untamed  heifer"  as  the 
Puritans  called  her, — had  discovered  the 
author  of  Richard  II  she  would  have  laid 
him  by  the  heels.  For  as  things  were  in  Tudor 
English  days  if  the  rebellion  had  gathered 
force,  and  Eseex  lost  control  of  his  followers 
(the  London  mob),  the  Queen  would  in  all 
probability  have  been  deposed  and  murdered. 

The  players  were  interrogated  and  it  was 
proved  that  the  performance  of  "Richard  II" 
was  by  request.  Nevertheless  students  of 
Elizabethan  literature,  when  they  take  up 
Shakespearean  criticism,  find  it  difficult  to  un- 
derstand why  the  author  of  the  play  "Richard 
II"  escaped  punishment  for  committing  an  of- 
fense much  more  serious  than  any  of  the  au- 
thor's literary  contemporaries,  and  for  which 
they  were  imprisoned. 

Nash  declares  that  for  a  twelvemonth  he 


8  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

published  nothing  for  fear  of  (literary)  cen- 
sure; he  had  been  imprisoned  and  banished 
from  London,  the  only  place  where  a  profes- 
sional writer  could  hope  to  keep  soul  and 
body  together.  "In  1599,  when  John  Stubbs 
and  the  publisher,  Page,  brought  out  a  pam- 
phlet against  the  French  marriage  they  were 
condemned  to  have  the  right  hand  struck  off, 
according  to  the  barbaric  Tudor  practice,  by 
a  blow  from  a  butcher's  knife." 

No  wonder  with  the  dread  of  authority  be- 
fore him,  the  author  of  "Richard  II"  should 
have  remained  in  seclusion  after  his  "report 
what  toucheth  the  deposing  of  a  king." 

But  there  is  not  a  grain  of  fact  which  tends 
to  prove  that  the  principal  person — the  au- 
thor, (whatever  his  name),  of  "Richard  II" 
— suffered  for  his  rashness,  or  was  made 
known  to  a  distrustful  government  by  the  pro- 
fessional informers,  called  "State  Deciphers" 
—vampires  gorged  with  perjury  and  sottish 
with  crime. 

Yet  at  or  before  this  time  (1601),  is  the 
supposed  date  of  twenty-three  plays  and  three 
poems,  which  now  issue  under  the  name 
"Shakespeare."  The  list  is  inclusive  of 
"Richard  II"  (1593). 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  9 

Before  or  during  the  year  1603,  there  was 
conferred  upon  the  author  of  the  immortal 
"Plays"  (known  or  unknown),  an  unusual 
distinction, — when  the  play  "Hamlet"  was 
acetd  in  the  two  Universities.  We  also  know 
that  "Volpone"  received  the  same  distinction 
by  the  grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  au- 
thor, Ben  Jonson :  "To  the  most  noble  and 
equal  Sisters,  the  two  famous  Universities,  for 
their  love  and  acceptance  shown  to  his  po- 
em (play)  in  the  presentation."  Thus  ac- 
knowledging the  authorship  of  "Volpone"  in 
the  dedication  of  it  and  himself. 

Surely  this  would  have  been  the  time  of 
the  Stratford  Player's  life  had  he  written 
"Hamlet,"  for  the  opportunity  it  gave  him  to 
show  himself  without  jeopardy,  as  he  was, 
and  link  his  name  and  fame  indissolubly  as 
the  author  of  the  immortal  work,  with  the  two 
famous  Universities.  But  most  unfortunately 
for  the  biographers  and  critics,  the  author- 
poet's  silence  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  con- 
cealed authorship.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is 
the  pseudonymous  author  could  not  dedicate 
both  "Hamlet"  and  himself  without  disclos- 
ing his  identity.  However,  the  manner  of 
man  he  was  cannot  be  discovered  by  an  en- 


10  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

deavor  to  identify  the  author  with  any  of  his 
dramatic  personages,  although  to  the  present 
writer  the  name  "Shakespeare  denotes  those 
ageless  and  immortal  "Plays"  and  almost 
nothing  else. 

But  we  may  pursue  the  examination  of  the 
particulars  of  the  life  of  one  William  Shaks- 
pere  of  Stratford-on-Avon,  for  the  reason 
that  many  persons  still  believe  that  these  par- 
ticulars of  the  life  of  the  Stratford  Player 
were  identical  with  the  author  of  "Hamlet" 
and  "King  Lear,"  who  in  their  opinion  is  still 
one  of  the  great  personalities  of  the  past. 

Nevertheless  there  are  many  distinguished 
persons  who  question  the  claim  set  up  for  the 
Stratford  Player  to  the  personal  authorship 
of  the  "Plays"  and  poems  associated  with  his 
name,  and  who  assert  that  critical  acuteness 
and  antiquarian  research  have  ousted  him 
from  possession  of  the  works  called  "Shake- 
speare." 

As  the  Greeks  of  the  olden  times  failed  to 
establish  the  identity  of  the  one  Homer,  au- 
thor of  our  "Iliad"  and  "Odyssy"  (according 
to  the  traditional  view),  so  the  moderns  are 
having  no  better  success  in  establishing  the 
identity  of  the  one  "Shakespeare"  as  author 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  11 

of  the  "Plays"  and  whether  or  not  the  poems 
and  plays  imputed  to  William  Shakespeare 
were  really  written  by  a  person  of  that  name. 

The  late  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  says, — "I  can- 
not believe  that  the  actual  author  "Shake- 
speare" lived  and  died  and  left  no  trace  of  his 
existence  except  his  share  in  the  "Works" 
called  "Shakespeare".  But  we  know  as  in 
the  case  of  "Junius"  it  did  happen,  and  who 
Martin  Mar,  prelate,  positively  was  has  nev- 
er been  ascertained.  Nor  is  the  mystery  likely 
to  be  solved  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  "Sibyl- 
line Oracles".  However,  we  reserve  what  is 
to  be  said  about  pseudonymous  authorship 
for  another  place,  but  it  may  be  noted  in  pas- 
sing, that  if  a  trace  of  the  actual  author  of 
the  Plays  is  ever  found  it  will  bear  the  literary 
mark  or  impress  like  the  tracings  of  all  lit- 
erary men  of  the  time,  instead  of  the  litigious 
trace  of  the  usurer. 

William  Shakspere  of  Stratford  has  been 
traced,  and  it  is  this  very  tracing  of  him — 
deed  by  deed — now  here,  now  there,  his  ac- 
tions and  his  ways,  which  prove  the  utter  un- 
doing of  his  reputation  as  the  author  of  the 
works  called  "Shakespeare".  It  is  a  very  easy 
matter  to  trace  him  in  his  endeavor  to  sieze 


12  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

the  common  fields ;  in  his  falseness  and  venal- 
ity in  bribing  the  officers  of  Herald  College  to 
issue  a  grant  to  his  father,  but  do  the  notices 
and  particulars  of  the  Stratford  Player's 
match-making  intermediations,  litigious  and 
common-field  grabbing  proclivity  compli- 
ment the  works  called  "Shakespeare",  as  the 
appurtenances  of  author-craft. 

By  way  of  contrast,  see  how  in  Beaumont, 
Chapman,  Drayton  and  Ben  Jonson,  individ- 
uality and  work  are  linked  together;  supply- 
ing the  consummation  for  their  history  is  the 
complement  of  poetry  and  author-craft,  while 
the  converse  instances  in  the  history  of  the 
Stratford  actor  are  the  complement  of  stroll- 
ing player,  money  lender,  speculator  and  the 
like.  "To  be  told  that  he  played  a  deception 
on  a  fellowplayer,"  the  narration  of  which 
would  sully  these  pages,  or  that  he  died  of  a 
drunken  carousal,  does  not,  says  Hallam,  "ex- 
actly inform  us  of  the  man  who  wrote  'Lear'." 

Emerson  could  not  marry  the  Stratford 
player's  life  to  "Shakespeare's  Verse,"  for  the 
actual  facts  of  the  Stratford  Player's  life  add 
opprobrium  to  his  character — the  comple- 
ment of  what  is  called  low  activities. 

"Into  the  dark,"  says  Mr.  Lang,  "go  one 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  13 

and  all,  Shakespeare  and  the  others."  The 
strictest  scrutiny,  however,  fails  to  disclose  the 
truth  of  this  statement.  "Into  the  dark  go  one 
and  all" — that  is  taking  Spencer,  Fletcher, 
Drayton,  Chapman,  Beaumont,  Ben  Jonson 
and  several  others;  for  in  the  literary  particu- 
lars of  their  lives  they  are  most  manifest.  It 
is  not  the  fewness  in  the  number  of  notices, 
which  must  necessarily  be  small,  that  should 
awaken  comment,  so  long  as  the  notices  are 
native  and  complemental  to  the  character  of 
literary  men. 

The  late  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  is  a  writer  who 
was  possessed  of  much  more  than  miscellane- 
ous and  general  erudition,  and  not  so  amateur- 
ish in  the  matter  of  Elizabethan  literary  his- 
tory as  he  would  have  his  readers  believe.  For 
we  find  him  taking  part  in  the  scrimmage  go- 
ing on  in  the  camp  of  the  Stratfordians  cudg- 
eling professionally  trained  students  of  liter- 
ary history,  like  Sir  Sidney  Lee  and  Mr. 
Churton  Collins  of  his  own  fellowship,  on 
points  concerning  "quartos,"  "The  First  Fo- 
lio," and  on  "Shakespeare's"  learning,  al- 
though his  thrashing  over  the  old  straw  in 
connection  with  the  illustrious  "Verulam" 
seems  inconsequential. 


14  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

It  is  fine  sport,  however,  to  witness  the 
Stratfordians  at  odds  among  themselves,  for 
their  divarication  is  plainly  specified  in  the 
use  made  of  their  knowledge,  as  professional- 
ly trained  students  of  Elizabethan  literature, 
in  proving  that  the  camp  of  the  Stratfordians 
divided  against  itself  can  stand  almost  any 
amount  of  derisive  laughter,  on  account  of  the 
divergences  of  opinion  touching  Shake- 
speare's learning.  As  as  exemplification,  Sir 
Sidney  Lee  holding  the  opinion  that  "Shake- 
speare" had  no  claim  to  rank  as  a  classical 
scholar,  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  and  J.  M.  Rob- 
ertson concurring.  At  the  same  time,  that  ir- 
respressible  Stratfordian,  Mr.  Churton  Col- 
lins, points  out  that  the  works  of  Shake- 
speare evince  the  ripest  scholarship,  and  Pro- 
fessor Byness  is  of  the  opinion  that  he  (Shake- 
speare) was  a  trained  classical  scholar. 
"Shakespeare's  vocabulary,"  says  Sidney  La- 
nier,  "is  wonderfully  large.  It  does  not  seem 
to  have  occurred  to  those  who  have  thought 
him  an  unlearned  man  that  whatever  words 
he  uses  he  must  have  read,  for  words  are  whol- 
ly artificial  products  and  cannot  come  by  in- 
tuition, no  matter  how  divine  may  be  our  gen- 
ius." The  late  Dr.  Furness  says  of  Shake- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  15 

speare,  that  he  must  have  been  an  "omnivor- 
ous reader." 

The  "Shakespeare"  Plays,  according  to 
Walter  Bagehot  (1826-1877),  "show  not  only 
a  very  powerful  but  also  a  very  cultivated 
mind." 

The  upholders  of  the  Stratfordian  faith 
feel  the  pressure  and  force  of  the  evidence  in 
striving  to  off-set  the  obvious  inference  of  il- 
literacy in  the  Stratford  Player  by  harping  on 
the  inexact  scholarship  of  the  author  of  the 
"Plays."  However,  very  many  students  of 
literary  history  assert  that  Shakespeare  was 
abundantly  lettered. 

We  cannot  resist  a  shaking  of  the  sides  with 
laughter  in  seeing  the  ardent  J.  M.  Robertson 
pitted  against  the  members  of  his  own  school 
(Stratfordians),  "as  cocks  in  a  pit,"  over  the 
proposition  as  to  the  legal  knowledge  shown 
in  the  Plays,  and  who,  like  the  parson  in 
"Hudibras,"  strives  to  "prove  his  doctrine 
orthodox  by  Apostolic  (forensic)  blows  and 
knocks." 

Happy  thought!  Why  are  the  Shake- 
speare classical  scholars  so  irreconcilably  at 
variance  in  opinions  of  Shakespeare's  learn- 
ing if  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  professional- 


16  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ly  trained  students  of  literary  history?  How 
delighted  we  all  would  be  if  Shakespeare 
—whomsoever  the  dramatist  might  be— 
could  have  collaborated  in  "Eastward  Hoe" 
with  Chapman  and  Ben  Jonson,  and  with 
them  committed  to  a  vile  prison  and  been  in 
danger  of  having  his  nostrils  split,  or  at  least 
his  ears  clipped,  for  this  would  have  disclosed 
Shakespeare's  identity.  As  one  of  the  im- 
prisoned poets  he  would  doubtless  have  writ- 
ten one  or  more  of  the  Letters  of  Chapman 
and  Jonson  concerning  "Eastward  Hoe,"  seek- 
ing their  release.  George  Chapman  wrote  to 
His  Majesty,  King  James  I,  also  two  letters 
to  the  Lord  Chamberlain.  Ben  Jonson  wrote 
to  the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  to  the  Countess  of 
Rutland  and  the  Earl  of  Salisbury. 

The  supposed  date  of  "Eastward  Hoe"  is 
1604,  but  the  first  quarto  version  of  the  play 
—the  only  one  which  contains  the  passage  in 
which  the  authors  poke  fun  at  the  Scots — ap- 
peared in  1605,  and  for  which  George  Chap- 
man and  Ben  Jonson  were  cast  into  prison. 
Those  years  also  contained  the  supposed  date 
of  "Othello,"  "Macbeth"  and  "Lear." 

However,  there  is  no  ground  for  belief  that 
the  author  of  the  "Plays"  (Shakespeare) — al- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  17 

ways  a  recluse  from  public  notice — would  col- 
laborate, for  the  conditions  of  anonymity  are 
irreconcilable  with  the  certified  authorship  of 
Chapman,  Marston  and  Ben  Jonson  in  "East- 
ward Hoe." 

The  author  of  the  immortal  "Works"  hid 
his  fame  in  silence,  as  if  conspiring  against  an 
illustrious  name  and  wondrous  renown. 
"Shakespeare"  is  as  impersonal  and  descrip- 
tive as  is  Homer,  and  as  misty  and  mythical 
as  is  the  name  and  personality  of  William 
Tell. 

When  the  claim  to  authorship  is  chal- 
lenged, as  in  the  case  of  the  Stratford  Player, 
the  smaller  the  number  of  notices  non-literary 
the  better  for  the  one  taken  to  be  claimant. 
But  instead  we  find  the  notices  of  William 
Shakspere,  the  Stratford  Player,  unconnected 
with  literary  work,  superabundant;  traits  and 
actions  not  literary,  by  their  excess  and  pre- 
dominance tend  to  prove  the  literary  delusion 
associated  with  the  Stratford  actor's  name,  for 
we  have  practically  no  authenticated  literary 
facts  but  are  swamped  with  notices  of  him  not 
associated  with  literary  work,  such  as  we  find 
recorded  by  Shakespeare's  biographers. 

Degrading  as  many  of  them  are,  instancing 


18  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

the  new  discoveries  unearthed  by  the  anti- 
quarians, they  have  placed  the  reflective  Strat- 
fordians  in  a  quandary.  For  as  late  as  1613, 
after  all  the  immortal  plays  were  written, 
when  the  Stratford  actor  (whom  many  read- 
ers still  identify  with  The  Great  Unknown 
p  1  a  y  w  r  i  g  h  t — the  pseudonymous  "Shake- 
speare") was  supposed  to  have  returned  to 
Stratford,  instead  aMr.  Shakspeare"  is  dis- 
covered at  Belvoir  Castle  with  Richard  Bur- 
bage,  his  yoke-mate  and  fellow-worker  in  and 
about  "My  Lord's  Impreso"  or  device. 

In  1905  was  discovered  the  Earl  of  Rut- 
land's account  book  of  household  expenses  in- 
curred at  Belvoir  Castle,  for  the  year  begin- 
ning August,  1612,  and  ending  August,  1613. 
It  had  lain  concealed  for  more  than  three  cen- 
turies and  contained  an  entry  showing  in  the 
year  1613  "Mr.  Shakespeare"  was  engaged 
with  Richard  Burbage  to  work  at  the  Earl  of 
Rutland's  new  device  or  emblem,  and  that 
each  received  a  sum  of  forty-four  shillings  in 
payment  of  their  services. 

Mrs.  C.  C.  Stopes  is  unwilling  to  believe 
that  the  Stratford  actor,  who  in  her  opinion 
was  the  author,  was  in  1613  engaged  in  work 
in  no  way  related  to  literature,  and  with  Dr. 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  19 

C.  W.  Wallace  is  struggling  to  relieve  "Shake- 
speare of  the  mingling  of  petty  business  with 
the  production  of  the  noblest  dramas  of  hu- 
man life  ever  written." 

Contrast  "Mr.  Shakspeare's"  non-literary 
employment  at  Belvoir  Castle,  the  seat  of  the 
Earl  of  Rutland,  "about  my  Lord's  'Impreso,' 
with  that  of  George  Peek,  poet  and  drama- 
tist, at  Theobald,  the  seat  of  Lord  Burleigh. 
"Peele  was  employed  to  compose  certain 
speeches  addressed  to  the  Queen,  for  payment. 
Also  when  the  Earl  of  Northumberland  pre- 
sented him  with  a  fee  of  three  pounds  for  ad- 
dressing literary  tributes."  Is  it  not  wonder- 
ful that  the  Shakespeare  of  the  Plays,  if 
well  known  to  such  men  as  the  Earl  of  Essex, 
the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  the  Earl  of  Rutland, 
persons  of  aristocratic  birth,  with  a  position  in 
court  circles  as  some  Stratfordians  assert 
(without  proof),  that  he  did  not  mention  the 
name  of  any  one  of  them,  or  the  name  of  any 
poet  or  author  of  his  time? 

William  Shakspere  of  Stratford,  we  know 
left  behind  him  no  literary  correspondence, 
his  life  history  is  non-literary;  as  an  humble 
actor  his  acts,  and  all  that  he  did  histrionical- 
ly considered  are  compressed  into  scantiest 


20  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

record.  There  were  three  hundred  and  thir- 
ty-two contemporary  poets,  enumerating  those 
only  whose  works  were  published.  Of  all 
these  but  five  or  six  obscure  writers  refer  to 
"Shakespeare"  as  a  personality,  more  or  less 
vaguely  in  the  lifetime  of  the  Stratford  actor. 
All  other  reference  is  to  the  "Shakespeare 
Works,"  author  unknown. 

While  Shakspere  of  the  stage  was  living, 
Ben  Jonson  maintained  silence  be  it  remem- 
bered,— not  so  much  as  the  least  commentary 
upon  him  until  he  had  lain  for  years  in  the 
grave.  But  when  Ben  died  in  1637  he  left  in 
manuscript  the  statement  that  he  "loved  the 
man"  (Shakspere).  Why  not  say  so  while 
both  are  in  the  flesh  if  in  the  opinion  of  Ben 
Will  was  the  author. 

However,  Ben  Jonson's  panegyrics  hyper- 
bolizing Shakespeare  in  prose  and  verse  are 
to  a  great  degree  what  the  Stratfordians  rely 
upon. 

"Though  merely  writ  at  first  for  fill- 
ing 

To  raise  the  volume's  price  a  shill- 
ing." 

The  plain,  unvarnished  truth  of  the  matter  is 
the  "Shakespeare"  Plays  were  not  thought 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  21 

wonderful  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth  and 
King  James  I,  and  almost  any  perso'n  in  that 
age  could  have  been  set  up  as  claimant  and 
passed  unchallenged,  so  little  were  dramatic 
productions  regarded.  Plays  were  referred 
to  as  "riff-raff" — "lewd  and  lascivious  plays." 

However,  the  Stratford  actor  was  not  seri- 
ously suspected  during  his  lifetime  of  any 
authorship  whatever,  so  far  as  anyone  knows 
and  can  prove,  but  seemed  always  cherishing 
the  lust  of  gain.  All  the  conventional  writers 
on  the  subject  of  Shakespeare  have  been  put 
into  a  quandary  or  puzzling  predicament,  by 
the  mean  biographical  facts  and  non-literary 
environment  during  the  entire  life  of  the  re- 
puted author,  disclosed  by  an  unbiased  view 
of  his  whole  career.  As  an  instance,  when  he 
as  marriage-broker  or  intermediary,  gave  sup- 
port to  an  old  wig-maker  in  bilking  his  ap- 
prentice; and  when  he,  a  pitiless  money- 
lender and  usurer,  without  any  tenderness  for 
his  debtors,  had  the  borrower  sent  to  prison 
for  a  picayunish  sum  of  money;  and  when  he, 
with  two  other  common  field-land  sharks, 
strove  to  dispossess  the  poor  people  of  their 
rights  in  the  tithe-paying  land  rights  dear  to 
many  a  poor  widow  and  her  fatherless  chil- 


22  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

dren,  struggling  in  their  distress  and  need 
against  the  buffeting  of  a  pitiless  world. 

The  reader's  discernment  perceives  the  for- 
midable difficulties  in, the  way  of  the  "Strat- 
fordians,"  who  believe  the  author  of  the 
"Plays"  to  be  the  young  man  who  came  hik- 
ing up  from  Stratford,  who  was  thereafter  a 
shareholding  actor  in  a  London  Playhouse, 
and  returned  to  Stratford  in  the  very  prime  of 
manhood;  who  never  claimed  to  be  the  author 
of  the  "Plays"  or  gave  any  directions  for  their 
publication. 

The  Shakespeare  Plays  owe  their  per- 
petuity chiefly  to  the  student  reader  in  the 
closet  and  not  to  the  stage,  where  the  Plays 
were  mutilated  and  still  bear  the  tracings  of 
histrionic  savagery,  perpetrated  before  and  af- 
ter the  publication  of  the  folio  of  1623. 

For  eight  and  twenty  years  within  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  Inner  and  Middle  Temple,  the 
name  and  writings  of  Shakespeare  were  un- 
known. "Whatever  the  cause,"  writes  H.  H. 
L.  Bellot,  The  Inner  and  Middle  Temple,  p. 
196,  "the  fact  remains  that  out  of  the  twenty 
plays  produced  in  our  Hall  from  the  acces- 
sion of  Charles  II  to  the  flight  of  his  brother 
(James  II),  not  one  can  claim  Shakespeare 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  23 

as  its  author.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  are  re- 
sponsible for  six."  "The  Twin"  dramatic 
stars  were  very  distinctly  marked  in  Jacobean 
times. 

What  have  the  legal  craftsmen  of  the  Inns 
of  Court  found  wanting  in  "Shakespeare?" 
He  touches  all  there  is  within  the  scope  of  hu- 
man thought. 

"For  his  bounty  there  was  no  winter  in't,  an 
autumn  'twas  that  grew  the  more  by  reaping." 

Whatever  the  efficient  cause  the  truth  re- 
mains, that  the  members  of  this  great  legal 
University,  successors  to  the  illustrious  Order 
of  the  Knights  Templar,  knew  little  of  the 
Plays  called  "Shakespeare."  And  that  little 
is  made  manifest  by  the  discovery  in  1828, 
among  the  Harlian  manuscripts  at  the  British 
Museum,  of  the  diary  of  a  student  of  the  Inn. 

John  Manningham,  barrister-at-law  and  a 
cultured  man,  on  the  2nd  of  February,  1602, 
writes:  "At  our  feast  we  had  a  play  called 
Twelve  Nights,  or  What  You  Will.'  This 
performance  formed  part  of  the  revels  which 
immediately  followed  the  Christmas  revels." 
There  is  contained  in  the  diary  or  note  book 
the  sole  anecdote  of  Shakespeare  (Shakspere) 
known  to  have  been  recorded  in  the  Stratford 


24  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

actor's  liftime.  But  like  all  other  authenti- 
cated notices  of  him  it  is  non-literary.  "How- 
ever, the  'Wine  and  Woman'  story  contained 
in  the  student's  note  book  is  very  good  evi- 
dence of  reputation,"  writes  Sir  George  G. 
Greenwood.  About  the  authorship,  Man- 
ningham  says  nothing,  which  proves  that  the 
Plays  were  not  then  conspicuously  associated, 
if  at  all,  with  the  Stratford  actor's  name. 

Among  the  fellow  students  of  John  Man- 
ningham  was  John  Pym,  the  celebrated  states- 
man and  orator.  "He  is  of  a  sweet  behavior, 
a  good  spirit  and  a  pleasing  discourse,"  writes 
the  diarist.  Another  fellow  student,  John 
Ford  the  playwright,  was  admitted  a  fellow 
of  the  Middle  Temple  in  1602;  also  the  famed 
poet,  Dr.  John  Donne,  educated  at  both  Uni- 
versities and  at  Lincoln's  Inn;  Francis  Beau- 
mont, the  eminent  dramatist,  was  admitted  to 
the  law  society  on  November  3,  1600,  and 
might  have  been  present  also  when  'Twelfth 
Night'  was  produced.  Thomas  Campion, 
masque  writer,  was  educated  at  Gray's  Inn; 
William  Camden  and  William  Dugdale,  the 
great  and  learned  antiquaries,  were  both  mem- 
bers of  Gray's  Inn;  Sir  Philip  Sidney  was  a 
member  of  Gray's  Inn;  so  were  John  Hamp- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  25 

den,  Sir  Francis  Bacon  and  Thomas  Middle- 
ton,  playwright.  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  who 
was  admitted  to  membership  of  the  Inn  in 
1575 ;  James  Shirley,  the  poet  and  play  maker, 
was  a  member  of  the  Legal  Inn. 

Is  it  not  very  extraordinary  that  in  an  age 
of  great  men  and  great  deeds,  and  much  epis- 
tolary correspondence,  there  is  no  mention  of 
the  actual  author  of  the  immortal  Works,  by 
way  of  commentation,  exposition  or  observa- 
tion? While  the  Plays  of  Shakespeare 
were  subjects  for  stage  representation  in  the 
lifetime  of  the  Stratford  actor  by  illustrious 
men,  no  effort  was  made  to  illustrate  the  indi- 
vidual life  by  the  eminent  persons  who  may 
well  have  been  present  to  witness  the  plays 
produced  in  this  stately  Hall  of  the  honorable 
societies  of  the  "Inns  of  Court,"  and  where  for 
many  generations  they  lived  and  wrought  in 
literature,  law  and  history  within  the  pre- 
cincts of  this  historic  spot. 

Is  it  possible  that  the  great  advocate,  John 
Seldon,  Thomas  Shackvill,  Chancellor  of  Ox- 
ford, the  indomitable  Sir  Walter  Raleigh, 
Lord  Chancellor  Hatton,  Sir  Thomas  Over- 
bury,  Sir  Francis  Drake,  Sir  Edward  Coke, 
Sir  Francis  Walsingham,  or  Henry  Wriothes- 


26  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ley,  third  Earl  of  Southampton,  would  not  if 
they  had  witnessed  the  presentation  of  Shake- 
speare's Play  as  it  left  the  author's  hand  un- 
abridged, glorified  him  and  it? 

However,  it  is  impossible  not  to  recognize 
the  fact  that  Shakespeare  was  above  the  ca- 
pacity of  the  playhouse  loving,  bear-baiting, 
beer  guzzling,  rough-and-tumble,  fighting 
public  of  that  day,  of  whom  it  was  said  "they 
will  eat  like  wolves  and  fight  like  devils."  All 
of  which  is  to  the  meditative  student,  painful 
and  disgusting. 

With  the  play-reader,  however,  Shake- 
speare is  always  at  his  best,  for  he  gives  his 
readers  all  the  delight  which  the  music  of  his 
words  contained,  and  in  his  unaltered  works 
convey  all  the  poetry  of  it.  Every  kind  of 
eloquence,  ancient  and  modern,  is  present  to 
our  mind  in  the  reading. 

But  with  the  play-goer  Shakespeare  is  at 
his  very  worst  for  there  is  so  much  in  him 
which  comes  not  within  the  sphere  of  acting 
but  may  come  under  the  province  of  histrion- 
ical  savigism,  in  the  stage  representation  so 
pawed  over,  abbreviated  and  bemuddled  by 
declamatory  actors  to  please  the  general  audi- 
tory. 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  27 

The  fact  is  they  cut  him  then  as  they  cut 
him  now,  by  the  omission  of  many  of  the  most 
striking  passages  in  the  plays,  but  with  this 
difference,  that  in  the  olden  time  they  ex- 
punged the  parts  more  frequently  which  alone 
will  be  treasured  to  the  latest  ages.  Such  as 
the  Roman  orations,  Clarence's  dream,  Por- 
tia's beautiful  tribute  to  the  quality  of  mercy, 
and  the  many  lines  so  richly  jeweled  by  the 
poet's  "vision  and  faculty  divine."  Proof  of 
which  is  the  omission  in  all  acting  editions  of 
the  great  speech  in  "Hamlet,"  Act  IV,  Scene 
4, — "the  one  especial  speech,"  as  Swinburne 
phrased  it,  "in  which  the  personal  genius  of 
Shakespeare  soars  up  to  the  very  highest  of  its 
height,  and  strikes  down  to  the  very  deepest 
of  its  depth."  It  was  written,  he  says,  not  for 
"the  stage  but  for  the  study." 

Shakespeare  is  very  beautiful  in  the  read- 
ing but  no  dramatist-actor  would  cast  such 
pearls  before  the  Tudor  and  Jacobin  public 
playhouse  swine.  We  infer  this  from  the  fact 
that  no  person  in  that  age  did  set  forth  the 
majesty  and  loftiness  of  Shakespeare's 
thought.  In  fact,  the  "Shakespeare"  Plays 
were  above  the  intelligence  of  the  frequenters 
of  the  public  playhouse.  No  play  was  given 


28  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

as  Shakespeare  wrote  it,  but  a  good  deal  ab- 
breviated for  stage  production,  and  an 
abridged  version  made  for  the  stage  retains  all 
the  slang  expressions  and  wanton  interpola- 
tions of  the  actors,  who  delight  in  the  non- 
sensical jargon  of  the  punster.  Much  of  this 
"sad  stuff"  was  placed  under  the  immortal 
author's  nom  de  plume,  "Shakespeare." 

Is  it  not  strange  that  there  should  be  extant 
the  record  of  but  two  persons  who  ever  wit- 
nessed a  presentation  of  a  probable  Shake- 
speare Play?  An  astrologer,  one  Dr.  Simon 
Forman,  noticed  three,  namely:  "The  Win- 
ter's Tale"  at  the  Globe  Theatre,  May  15th, 
1611,  "Cymbeline"  (time  and  place  not  given) 
and  "Macbeth"  at  the  Globe,  April  20th, 
1610;  and  "Twelfth  Night"  noticed  by  John 
Manningham,  a  member  of  the  Middle  Tem- 
ple, February  2nd,  1602.  The  name  "Shake- 
speare" is  not  contained  in  either  of  their  note 
books  in  connection  with  plays  or  poems. 

Are  we  to  infer  that  a  well  educated  bar- 
rister-at-law,  a  member  of  the  Inns  of  Court, 
would  have  been  indifferent  to  its  authorship 
had  he  known  that  the  writer  of  this  mirth- 
producing  play,  "Twelfth  Night,"  was  the 
author  who  speaks  from  the  mouth  of  An- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  29 

tony  above  the  body  of  Caesar?  Are  we  to 
understand  that  if  the  Roman  play,  "Julius 
Caesar" — a  play  which  contains  those  splen- 
did monuments  of  genius  and  eloquence,  the 
speeches  of  Brutus  and  Antony — had  been 
presented  on  a  stage  at  that  time,  or  at  any 
time  in  the  Hall  of  this  ancient  legal  univer- 
sity, that  the  benchers,  barriers  and  students 
of  these  law  societies,  would  not  have  given  in 
their  note  books  a  more  ample  commentary? 

" You  all  do  know  this  mantel :  I  re- 
member 

The  first  time  ever  Caesar  put  it  on— 

'Twas  on  a  summer's  evening,  in  his 
tent, 

That  day  he  overcame  the  Nervii : 

Look!    In   this   place   ran   Cassius' 
dagger  through; 

See  what  a  rent  the  envious  Casca 
made; 

Through  this  the  well-beloved  Bru- 
tus stabbed, 

And  as  he  plucked  his  cursed  steel 
away 

Mark  how  the  blood  of  Caesar  fol- 
lowed it." 

When  reading  these  immortal  lines  Emer- 
son cast  no  beam  on  the  "jovial  actor  and 
Sharer."  He  says,  "other  admirable  men  have 


30  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

led  lives  in  some  sort  of  keeping  with  their 
thought,  but  this  man  in  wide  contrast.  I  can- 
not marry  this  fact  to  his  verse." 

Shakspere  the  Stratford  man  is  not  in  har- 
many  with  "Shakespeare"  the  poet.  The 
player's  life  was  never  reflected  in  the  poet's 
works,  as  he  led  a  life  in  wide  contrast  to  the 
poet's  thought.  Identifying  the  Stratford 
player  with  the  author  of  "Hamlet"  is  to  give 
the  poet  a  character  made  up  of  incongruities 
manifestly  incompatible.  It  is  the  work  that 
is  immortal,  the  personality  of  the  author  is 
as  mythical  as  is  Homer. 

II. 

Our  belief  in  the  pseudonymity  of  the  auth- 
or of  the  poems  and  plays  called  "Shakespear- 
ean" is  strengthened  by  the  absence  of  verse 
commemorative  of  concurrent  events,  such  as 
the  strivings  of  his  boldest  countrymen  in  the 
great  Elizabethan  age.  There  is  from  his  pen 
neither  word  of  cheer  nor  sympathy  with  the 
daring  and  suffering  warriors  and  adventur- 
ers of  that  time,  although  his  contemporaries 
versified  eulogies  to  the  heroes  of  those  days 
for  their  stirring  deeds.  There  is  in  the  poems 
and  plays  no  elegiac  lay  in  memory  of  Eliza- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  31 

beth — "The  glorious  daughter  of  the  illustri- 
ous Henry,"  as  Robert  Greene  called  her,  "and 
that  great  queen  of  famous  memory"  is  the 
more  exalted  praise  of  Oliver  Cromwell.  Nor 
is  there  one  line  of  mourning  verse  at  the 
death  of  Prince  Henry,  the  noblest  among  the 
children  of  the  king,  by  a  writer  who  was  al- 
ways a  generous  and  consistent  supporter  of 
prerogative  against  the  apprehension  of  free- 
dom. 

This  is  another  evidence  of  the  secrecy 
maintained  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  poems 
and  plays.  We  cannot  discover  a  single  laud- 
atory poem  or  commendatory  verse,  or  a  linj 
of  praise,  of  any  publication  or  writer  of  his 
time. 

All  this  is  in  contrast  with  his  contempor- 
aries whose  personalities  are  identified  with 
their  literary  work,  and  so  liberal  of  commen- 
dation were  they  that  they  literally  showered 
commendatory  verses  on  literary  works  of 
merit,  or  those  thought  to  have  merit.  Of 
these,  thirty-five  were  bestowed  on  John 
Fletcher,  a  score  or  more  on  Beaumont,  Chap- 
man and  Ford,  while  Massinger  received 
nineteen. 

Ben  Jonson's  published  works  contain  thir- 


32  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ty-seven  pieces  of  commendation.  His  Ro- 
man tragedy,  "Sejanus,  His  Fall/'  was  ac- 
claimed by  ten  contemporary  poets.  In  praise 
of  his  comedy  "Volpone"  there  are  seven 
poems.  The  versified  compliments  bestowed 
on  him  by  his  contemporaries  embrace  many 
of  the  most  celebrated  names  antecedent  to  his 
death,  which  occurred  in  1637. 

Early  in  1638  a  collection  of  some  thirty 
elegies  were  published  under  the  title  of 
"Jonsonus  Virbius"  or  uThe  Memory  of  Ben 
Jonson,"  in  which  nearly  all  the  leading  poets 
of  the  day  except  Milton,  were  represented. 
"How  different,"  wrote  Mr.  J.  A.  Symonds, 
"was  the  case  of  Shakespeare." 

It  must  appear  strange  to  the  votaries  of 
Shakespeare,  who  make  the  player  one  with 
the  playwright,  that  Ben  Jonson  should  have 
received  so  many  crowns  of  mourning  verse 
while  for  Shakspere  of  Stratford,  the  now  re- 
puted author  of  "Hamlet,"  "Lear,"  and 
"Macbeth,"  there  wailed  no  dirge.  Not  a  sin- 
gle elegaic  poem  written  of  him  in  the  year 
of  his  death,  1616.  Already  in  that  fatal  year 
there  had  been  mourning  for  Francis  Beau- 
mont. Eight  and  forty  days  after  the  death  of 
Francis  Beaumont  all  that  was  mortal  of  Wil- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  33 

liam  Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon  was 
buried  in  the  chancel  of  his  parish  church,  in 
which  as  part  owner  of  the  tithes,  and  conse 
quently  one  of  the  lay  rectors,  he  had  the  right 
of  interment.  Over  the  spot  where  his  body 
was  laid  there  was  placed  a  slab  with  the  in- 
scription in  an  odd  and  strange  mixture  of 
small  and  capital  letters,  imprecating  a  curse 
on  the  man  who  should  disturb  his  bones: 


GOOD  FREND  FOR  ksvs  JAKE   FORBEARE, 
TO  D1CC   TIE!  DVST  ENOLOASED  KARE*. 

BLEST  BE  f  I^IAN  i  SPARES' THES  STONES, 

AND  CVRST  BE  HE  ¥  MOVES  MY  BONES 


Shakspere's  Epitaph. 

At  any  rate  the  words  contained  in  this  epi- 
taph clearly  identify  Shakspere  the  player, 
but  manifestly  not  in  the  manner  of  "Shake- 
speare" the  playwright.     For  we  know  that 
had  the  author  of  "Hamlet"  written  his  own 
epitaph  it  would  have  been  as  deathless  as  the 
one  over  the  Countess  of  Pembroke : 
"Underneath  this  sable  hearse 
Lies  the  subject  of  all  verse; 
Sidney's  sister,  Pembroke's  mother, 
Death  ere  thou  has  slain  another 
Learned  and  fair  and  good  as  she, 
Time  shall  throw  a  dart  at  thee." 


34  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

There  was  not  the  least  danger  that  the  ac- 
tor's grave  would  be  violated  by  the  Puritans, 
for  Dr.  John  Hall,  Shakspere's  son-in-law, 
was  a  Puritan.  If  he  had  had  this  warning 
epitaph  cut  on  the  tomb  it  would  have  been 
written  in  scholarly  English.  The  doggerel 
lines,  rude  as  they  are,  satisfied  doubtless  the 
widow  and  daughters — as  expressing  a  known 
wish  of  their  "dear  departed."  Themselves 
ignorant  they  could  not  read  the  absurd  and 
ignorant  epitaph  on  his  tomb,  so  their  hearts 
were  not  saddened  as  they  gazed  upon  an  in- 
scription of  barbaric  rudeness. 

The  tradition  that  William  Shakspere  of 
Stratford  wrote  his  own  epitaph  and  com- 
manded that  it  be  engraved  upon  his  tomb- 
stone stands  undisputed,  for  the  very  good  rea- 
son that  his  son-in-law,  Dr.  John  Hall,  a 
Christian  gentleman  and  scholar,  consented  to 
the  profanation  of  a  sanctuary  in  having  this 
mean,  ignorant  and  disgusting  epitaph  chis- 
eled in  the  pavement  of  "that  temple  of  silence 
and  reconciliation." 

In  the  olden  time  the  parochial  authorities 
of  Trinity  Church  had  no  rights  which  the 
wealthy  tithe  owner  and  lay  rector,  William 
Shakspere,  was  "bound  to  respect." 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  35 

In  reading  the  four  protective  lines  cut  on 
the  tomb,  which  contain  a  warning,  a  bless- 
ing and  a  curse,  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  see- 
ing that  the  maledictory  words  point  at  the  ex- 
humationist  of  his  own  generation.  Herein 
the  Stratford  actor  manifests  h  i  s  usual 
shrewdness,  for  he  had  offended  the  good  peo- 
ple of  Stratford  in  an  endeavor  to  rob  them  of 
their  ancient  rights  in  "the  common  fields." 
In  striving  to  snatch  bread  from  the  children 
of  the  poor  doubtless  gave  William  Shakspere 
an  opprobrious  name  among  the  towns-people 
of  Stratford  and  he  felt  that  his  bones  should 
have  all  the  protection  that  a  malediction 
could  give.  He  was  shrewd  enough  to  pro- 
vide, as  he  imagined,  for  any  contingency, 
hence  he  had  his  blessing  for  "the  man  that 
spares  these  stones"  and  a  curse  for  "he  who 
moves  my  bones." 

Who  wrote  Shakspere's  epitaph?  We  don't 
know  positively,  but  who  should  wish,  or 
would  dare,  or  be  permitted  to  imprint  upon 
Shakspere's  tombstone  a  curse  without  his  au- 
thority "Aye  There's  the  Rub?" 

Mr.  Holliwell-Phillipps  tells  us  that  these 
lines  "according  to  an  early  tradition  were  se- 
lected by  the  poet  himself  for  his  epitaph." 


36  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

He  adds  that  "there  is  another  early  but  less 
probable  statement  that  they  were  the  poet's 
own  composition." 

If  this  "mean  and  vulgar  curse"  had  been 
traditionally  handed  down  instead  of  having 
been  cut  in  stone  and  laid  upon  Shakspere's 
grave  it  would  have  been  rejected  as  spurious 
by  the  Stratfordolaters.  But  there  the  curse- 
inscribed  stone  rests  and  has  apparently  rested 
on  Shakspere's  grave  for  more  than  three  hun- 
dred years. 

Seventy-eight  years  after  Shakspcre's  inter- 
ment, William  Hall  an  Oxford  graduate,  in 
1694  stood  beside  the  grave  and  after  he  had 
read  the  rude,  absurd,  and  ignorant  epitaph, 
wrote  his  Commentary  contained  in  a  letter 
to  his  friend,  Edward  Thwaites,  preserved  in 
the  Bodleian  Library.  The  letter  has  brought 
to  light  the  significant  fact  concerning  the 
depth  of  Shakspere's  grave,  "they  have  laid 
him  full  seventeen  feet  deep,  deep  enough  to 
secure  him." 

The  execrative  epitaph  cut  on  his  tomb  is  a 
criminating  memorial  of  his  attempt  to  gain 
possession  of  the  Stratford  Common  lands. 

No  wonder  Shakspere  and  family  were 
scared,  for  the  years  1615-16  saw  insurrection 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  37 

and  pitched  battles.  The  townsmen  were 
struggling  with  the  rioters  to  prevent  the  en- 
closure of  the  Corporation  tithing-lands, 
while  the  riotous  henchmen  of  the  Combe 
Shakspere  land-grabbing  Combination  were 
digging  ditch-fences  around  the  land  they  in- 
tended to  enclose,  in  defiance  of  the  public 
weal  and  "the  law  of  the  realm."  Shakspere 
knew  how  extremely  bitter  had  been  his  fel- 
low townsmen's  state  of  mind,  whom  he  had 
oflended  during  the  two  years'  struggle,  he 
was  not  "one  of  them,"  and  of  course  loved 
by  few. 

The  people  of  his  day  were  superstitious; 
the  epitaph  was  to  them  the  voice  of  the  dead. 
Mr.  Holliwell-Phillipps  writes,  "whatever 
opinion  may  be  formed  respecting  the  author- 
ship of  the  lines  upon  the  stone  there  can 
scarcely  be  a  reasonable  doubt  that  they  are  a 
record  of  the  poet's  (actor's)  own  wishes." 
However,  there  is  much  that  is  inexplicable 
about  Shakspere's  interment.  His  name  does 
not  appear  upon  the  grave-stone  pointed  out 
as  his;  there  is  no  distinguishing  inscription 
on  it — nothing  in  fact  but  those  execrative 
lines. 

The  Countess  de  Chambrun  writes  "person- 


38  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ally,  I  consider  these  lines  (epitaph)  almost 
as  much  an  exemplification  of  their  author  s 
genius  as  more  poetic  works."  When  reading 
these  sentences  of  the  talented  lady,  I  feel  con- 
strained in  Socratic  phrase  to  address  her 
thus:  "Best  of  Women,  pardon  me  for  asking 
you  to  examine  the  miscellaneous  documents 
extant  among  the  Stratford  archives  where  are 
disclosed  the  fact  that  these  dreadful  lines  are 
not  an  exemplification  of  their  author's  gen- 
ius, but  of  their  author's  shrewdness  in  hav- 
ing his  grave  guarded  by  a  malediction  after 
having  tried  to  rob  his  home  town  of  its  com- 
mon field  rights.  In  Stratford's  dusty  rec- 
ords we  may  read  about  things  done,  deeds 
that  fit  into  the  known  facts  of  the  life  of  Wil- 
liam Shakspere  of  Stratford — when  and 
where  was  Poet's  bones." 

"Spurned  from  hallowed  ground 
Flung  like  base  carrion  to  the  hound." 
The  Poets'  tomb  in  every  age  are  the  object 
of  veneration. 

How    does    this    jibe   with    or   exemplify, 

Shakspere's  traditional  reputation — so-called 

—for  gentleness  of  spirit  and  good-will?  With 

his  sympathies  and  winning  disposition?  That 

it  should  have  been  found  necessary  to  exert 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  39 

a  protecting  influence  in  the  village  where  he 
was  born  and  where  he  had  lived  all  the  time 
of  his  youth,  where  his  children  were  born, 
where  his  father,  mother  and  son  were  buried, 
and  where  after  life's  short  eventide  they  bore 
him  to  that  quiet  resting-place  in  the  chancel 
of  his  parish  church.  That  there  should  have 
been  so  little  respect  shown,  much  less  honor 
and  reverence,  to  those  bones  that  were  Shak- 
spere's,  if  the  immortalities  were  really  writ- 
ten by  the  Stratford  actor. 

Be  the  cause  what  it  may,  not  one  of  the 
three  hundred  and  thirty-two  contemporary 
English  poets  sought  shelter  for  his  ashes  un- 
der the  aegis  of  malediction. 

If  in  pressing  his  claim  the  money  lender 
elects  to  be  a  tormentor  and  a  common-field 
vandal  (1614-1616),  his  name  will  be  exe- 
crated while  living  and  a  hateful  memory 
when  dead,  so  the  curse-inscribed  slab  was 
placed  over  Shakspere's  grave  as  a  shield  to 
protect  his  ashes  from  those  who  would  not 
hesitate  to  invade  the  tomb  of  one  whose  mem- 
ory had  become  hateful  to  them. 

One  thing  is  evidenced  by  the  maledictory 
epitaph,  that  the  one  who  wrote  it  was  afraid 


40  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

the  tomb  might  be  vialoted  by  the  removal  of 
the  bones. 

Who  were  they  that  would  most  likely  in- 
vade Shakspere's  tomb?  Obviously  the  poor 
people  who  regarded  the  Stratford  actor  as  a 
grasping  usurer,  a  hard-hearted  man  who 
pressed  poor  debtors  with  all  the  rigor  of  the 
law,  to  enforce  the  payment  of  petty  sums,  the 
man  who  had  shown  himself  supremely  selfish 
in  an  attempt  to  enclose  the  Stratford  common 
lands,  the  man  who  would  be  made  a  gentle- 
man by  misrepresentation,  fraud  and  false- 
hood. However,  the  awful  malediction 
makes  this  fact  known  that  the  desecration  of 
Shakspere's  grave  was  thought  more  than 
probable,  for  he  threatens  his  fellow-towns- 
men with  a  curse  should  they  disturb  his  bones 
—"you  will  be  blest  if  you  do  not,  but  ac- 
cursed if  you  do." 

It  seems  an  extraordinary  anomaly  to  many 
persons,  who  believe  that  the  Stratford  actor 
was  the  author  of  the  only  instance  of  a  poet 
or  author  having  his  grave  guarded  by  a  mal- 
ediction. "Lines  which  have  in  them,"  writes 
Washington  Irving,  "something  extremely 
awful." 

Go  visit  the  sacred  spots,  "temples  of  silence 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  41 

and  reconciliation,"  where  lie  or  are  com- 
memorated the  poets  in  every  land  of  song. 
Some  there  were  who  mingled  too  strenuously 
in  the  strifes  of  the  day,  like  Dante  and  Mil- 
ton, who  might  have  thought  that  their  ene- 
mies would  not  let  their  bones  rest  in  peace, 
but  nowhere  do  we  find  their  dreamless  dust 
resting  beneath  a  "stony  register"  imprecating 
a  curse  on  the  man  who  should  molest  his 
bones. 

Away  with  all  this  nonsense  about  Puritans, 
clerks  and  sextons  snatching  Shakspere's  bones 
out  of  his  grave  in  the  chancel  and  flinging 
them  into  the  bone  yard!  Why  then,  was 
Shakspere  haunted  with  the  thought  that  the 
exhumationist  wrould  disturb  his  bones? 

The  reason  why  is  disclosed  in  the  "Cor- 
poration Records,"  "Green's  Diary,"  "Wheler 
Collection  Stratford-on-Avon."  For  here 
may  be  found  in  dusty  records  the  facts  which 
the  biographers  of  Shakspere  are  striving  to 
shun,  in  order  to  keep  "Shakespeare"  as  they 
imagine,  from  going  into  the  limbo  of  ex- 
ploded myths. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  William  Shakspere 
had  died  in  the  early  months  of  the  year  1614, 
before  the  great  excitement  and  riot  at  Strat- 


42  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ford,  respecting  an  attempted  enclosure  of  the 
neighboring  common  fields,  the  guardian  lines 
would  never  have  been  cut  on  his  tomb,  for 
Shakspere  could  then  have  had  no  fear  that 
his  tomb  would  be  disturbed.  But  in  the  aut- 
umn of  the  year  Shakspere  became  implicated 
and  disgracefully  involved  with  Combe  and 
Mainwaring  in  an  attempt  to  enclose  the  com- 
mon fields,  which  belonged  to  the  Corporation 
of  Stratford.  At  the  time  of  Shakspere's  death 
the  strife  was  extremely  bitter.  Thirty-four 
days  before  he  closed  his  eyes,  a  petition  was 
sent  up  by  the  Corporation  of  Stratford  to  the 
Lord  Chief  Justice,  Sir  Edward  Coke,  who 
was  on  the  Warwickshire  Assize  and  a  cham- 
pion of  popular  rights,  standing  like  a  stone 
wall  against  the  contumacious  resistance 
which  William  Combe,  William  Shakspere 
and  Arthur  Mainwaring  were  offering  to  the 
authority  of  the  Corporation.  And  in  reply 
the  Chief  Justice  declared  from  the  bench  at 
Warwick  that  no  enclosure  should  be  made 
within  the  parish  of  Stratford  for  it  was 
against  the  law  of  the  realm. 

This  order  was  confirmed  on  the  same  cir- 
cuit two  years  afterwards.  "By  whose  Char- 
ter of  Incorporation  (Edward  VI),  the  Coun- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  43 

cillors  and  the  Bailiff,  Francis  Smyth  Sr.,  say 
the  common  fields  passed  to  the  town  for  the 
benefit  of  the  poor,  wherein  live  above  seven 
hundred  poor  which  receive  almes,  whose  cur- 
ses and  clamours  will  be  poured  out  to  God 
against  the  enterprise  of  such  a  thing." 

Nevertheless,  the  three  land  cormorants, 
Combe,  Shakespere  and  Mainwaring,  were  in 
no  complying  mood  and  they  proceeded  in 
defiance  of  their  orders,  to  throw  down  the 
banks  and  to  cut  up  the  four  hundred  acres 
of  corn  land  into  pasture  fields. 

The  Stratford  common  fields,  known  as 
Stratford  field,  Bishopton  field  and  Wilcombe 
field,  contained  altogether  about  1600  acres; 
Wilcombe  field  contained  about  400  acres. 

Against  the  threatened  invasion  of  the  land 
sharks  the  Corporation  showed  a  splendid  re- 
sistance. "The  town  councillors  of  Stratford 
were  determined  to  preserve  their  inheritance, 
they  would  not  have  it  said  in  future  times 
they  were  the  men  who  gave  way  to  the  un- 
doing of  the  town — all  three  fires  were  not  so 
great  a  loss  to  the  town  as  the  enclosure  would 
be  as  an  injury  to  the  town  charities  and 
tithes." 

On  December  23rd  the  Council  drew  up 


44          SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

two  letters  to  be  delivered  in  London,  one  ad- 
dressed to  Mainwaring,  who  resided  in  Lon- 
don and  was  represented  in  Stratford  by  one 
Replingham,  and  who  like  Combe  and  Shak- 
spere  knew  all  about  the  state  of  high  excite- 
ment and  valiant  commotion  at  Stratford;  and 
the  other  to  Shakspere,  who  resided  in  Strat- 
ford but  was  now  in  London  part  of  the  time. 
But  instead  of  assuming  a  protective  attitude 
toward  the  people  Shakspere  gave  his  fellow- 
townsmen  a  stout  resistance.  It  is  recorded  of 
him  that  the  latest  moments  of  his  life  were 
dedicated  to  the  pursuit  of  the  nefarious 
scheme  known  as  the  enclosure  of  the  Strat- 
ford common  fields  in  defiance  of  the  public 
interest. 

In  all  that  stands  for  the  repression  of  pop- 
ular rights  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford 
showed  himself  to  be  as  perverse  as  was  his 
confederate,  William  Combe,  the  new  Squire 
of  Welcombe,  who  proclaimed  his  succession 
to  his  father's  lands  and  his  power  as  a  petty 
magistrate  by  arbitrarily  sending  a  person 
(one  Hicox)  to  Warwick  jail,  and  refused 
bail  merely  because  he  "did  not  behave  him- 
self with  such  respect  in  his  presence  it  seem- 
eth  he  looked  for." 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  45 

The  matter  contained  in  the  subject  of  the 
enclosure  at  Wilcombe  set  forth  in  the  details 
of  the  hard  struggle,  is  preserved  in  the  Strat- 
ford Records,  where  it  is  represented  in  its 
proper  color. 

Notwithstanding  the  dark  ways  and  vain 
shuffling  by  conventional  writers  of  "Shake- 
speare's" so-called  "Lives,"  the  true  personal- 
ity of  the  Stratford  man,  Shakspere,  is  best 
shown  by  the  recorded  facts  of  his  life  more 
especially  contained  in  the  subject  matter  of 
the  attempted  enclosures  at  Wilcombe,  1614- 
1618  (Wheler  Papers)  Corporation  Records. 

The  Charter  granted  by  Edward  VI  to  the 
Corporation  of  Stratford-on-Avon  settled  on 
it  the  tithes  for  the  support  of  the  refounded 
school  and  almshouses.  The  year  1614  was 
as  direful  as  any  in  the  history  of  the  old, 
thatched-roof  town.  For  the  third  time  in 
twenty  years  Stratford  had  been  "greatly  ruin- 
ated by  fire." 

There  died  in  July  that  year  (1614),  just 
about  the  time  of  the  Great  Fire — July  9th — 
John  Combe,  the  usurious  money-lender  and 
notorious  litigant,  who  for  thirty  years  kept 
the  local  court  of  record  busy  with  suits  to  re- 
cover small  debts,  who  was  Shakspere's  espec- 


46  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ial  friend  and  to  whom  he  left  a  legacy  of  five 
pounds. 

The  passing  of  a  usurious  money-lender  in 
"spacious  time"  when  the  law  gave  a  gener- 
ous advantage  to  the  creditor  and  its  vile  pris- 
on to  the  breadwinner  of  the  poor  man's  fam- 
ily, was  very  good  cause  for  rejoicing,  for  then 
life  for  the  lowly  became  more  nearly  worth 
living,  for  there  was  one  tormentor  the  less. 

Notwithstanding  his  litigious  course  John 
Combe,  a  confirmed  bachelor,  was  probably 
the  best  member  of  a  family  of  hard  creditors. 
Two  brothers,  a  sister,  many  nephews,  nieces, 
cousins,  uncles  and  aunts,  were  all  bountifully 
remembered  in  his  will.  However,  the  peo- 
ple of  Stratford  derisively  condemned  his 
then  un-Christian  practice  of  lending  at  the 
rate  of  ten  per  cent,  and  his  rigorism  in  the 
pursuit  of  defaulting  debtors. 

"Here  lyes  ten  in  the  hundred 
In  the  ground  fast  ramn'd, 
'Tis  a  hundred  to  ten 
But  his  soul  is  damn'd." 

(Camden's  Remains  1614) 

But  it  was  John  Combe's  testamentary  be- 
quests which  proved  so  trying  to  the  souls  of 
the  good  people  of  Stratford.  His  nephew, 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  47 

Thomas  Combe,  was  his  heir  and  residuary 
legatee  and  he  succeeded  to  a  large  part  of  his 
uncle's  vast  property,  and  in  connection  with 
his  rantankerous  brother,  William  Combe, 
forthwith  started  enclosures  at  Welcombe. 
The  fours  years'  struggle  that  followed  was 
the  bane  of  Stratford  and  the  opprobrium  of 
Warwickshire,  from  the  autumn  of  1614  until 
squelched  by  the  Court's  order  in  1618.  But 
before  starting  these  nefarious  schemes  of  en- 
closures, two  months  after  their  uncle's  death 
they  had  their  henchmen  inquire  who  were 
most  likely  to  be  tempted  (bribed). 

Thomas  Greene  drew  up  a  list  of  the  "An- 
cient freeholders"  in  Old  Stratford  and  Wel- 
combe. Shakspere  heads  the  list  and  was  one 
of  the  chief  holders  of  the  tithes;  his  share  was 
worth  sixty  pounds  a  year.  Shakspere,  pre- 
vious to  the  attempted  enclosures  at  Wel- 
combe, had  purchased  of  the  elder  Combes 
127  acres  which  joined  the  coveted  common 
fields,  and  in  approving  of  the  scheme  of  en- 
closures and  giving  it  a  lift,  Shakspere  was 
like  the  farmer  who  asserted, — "I  ain't  greedy 
'bout  land,  I  only  just  want  what  j'ines  mine." 

The  Corporation,  depending  on  the  com- 
mon lands  of  Welcombe  which  were  tithe 


48  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

producing,  for  the  maintenance  of  its  seven 
hundred  poor  who  received  alms,  saw  in  this 
scheme  (the  threatened  enclosure),  a  reduc- 
tion of  tithes  from  which  were  endowed  their 
school  and  almshouses.  No  wonder  the  inva- 
sion of  popular  rights  was  fervently  resented 
by  the  Corporation.  It  would  only  be  through 
the  tithes  that  Shakspere  might  sustain  loss  as 
his  interest  in  the  tithes  may  be  depreciated. 
So  then,  at  the  outset  of  the  common  land 
grabbing  scheme,  William  Combe,  through 
his  "man  Friday" — one  Replingham — on  Oc- 
tober 28,  1614,  drafted  "Articles"  guarantee- 
ing Shakspere  from  prospective  loss,  and  at 
Shakspere's  suggestion  the  terms  were  to  in- 
clude his  cousin,  Thomas  Greene,  Town 
Clerk,  although  not  told  at  the  time  but  sub- 
sequently he  records  in  his  Diary: 

9  Ja  (1614)  Mr.  Replyngham  28 
October  articled  with  Mr.  Shak- 
spear  I  was  put  in  by  T  Lucas. 

"The  Miscellaneous  Documents"  and  report 
of  the  Council  meetings  at  the  Town  Hall 
give  details  of  their  actions  (Wheler  Papers 
at  Stratford,  1806). 

Thomas  Greene,  Town  Clerk,  makes  an  en- 
try in  his  Diary  on  the  23rd  December,  1614: 


^ 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  49 

"A  (at  the  town)  Hall  Letters  wryt- 
ten  one  to  Mr.  Maneryng  annother 
to  Mr.  Shakspeare  with  about  all  the 
Companys  hands  to  either.  I  also 
wryte  of  myself  to  my  cosen  Shak- 
speare the  coppyes  of  all  our  oathes 
made  then  also  a  note  of  the  incon- 
veniences wold  grow  by  the  Inclos- 
ures." 

See  insert  page  for  the  exact  reproduction 
of  the  entry  in  Thomas  Greene's  Diary  on  the 
23rd  December,  1614. ~h  <f  <* 

"The  inconveniences"  about  which  Greene 
wrote  may  be  anything  that  disturbs  comfort, 
impedes  progress,  giving  trouble  or  entailing 
suffering.  For  enclosure  would  have  caused 
decay  of  tillage,  penury,  depopulation  and  the 
subversion  of  homes.  Both  of  the  letters  to 
Shakspere  have  disappeared,  that  to  Main- 
waring  has  been  preserved,  for  there  is  a  con- 
temporary copy  in  Thomas  Greene's  hand- 
writing of  the  letter  to  Manwaring,  doubtless 
the  counterpart  of  that  to  Shakspere  is  extant 
among  the  Stratford  archives.  (Wheler  Pa- 
pers). 

Thomas  Greene  was  appointed  steward  of 
the  Court  of  Record,  Stratford-on-Avon  on 


50  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

September  7th,  1603.  There  was  no  town 
clerk  then,  the  steward  did  the  duties  until 
the  office  of  town  clerk  was  created  in  1610. 
He  conducted  the  Addenbroke  prosecution, 
1608-9,  at  which  time  he  was  living  in  Shak- 
spere's  house  New  Palace.  He  was  a  Coun- 
cillor of  Middle  Temple  and  a  solicitor  in 
whose  diary  and  correspondence  we  find  allu- 
sions to  his  cousin  Shakspere,  but  nothing  in 
regard  to  Poets,  Play-wrights,  Poems  o  r 
Plays. 

In  November  (1614),  Thomas  Greene, 
Clerk  of  the  Council,  proceeded  to  London  to 
present  a  petition  to  the  Privy  Council.  With- 
in twenty-four  hours  of  his  arrival  he  called 
upon  "Cosin  Shakspeare"  and  writes  in  his 
Diary: 

"Jovis  17  Nov  (1614)  My  Cosin 
Shakspeare  comyng  yesterday  to 
town  I  went  see  him  how  he  did  He 
told  me  that  they  assured  him  they 
ment  to  enclose  noe  further  then  to 
Gospell  Bushe  and  soe  upp  straight 
(leavyng  out  part  of  the  Dyngles  to 
the  Field)  to  the  Gate  in  Clapton 
hedge  and  take  in  Salisburyes  piece 
and  that  they  mean  in  Aprill  to  sur- 
vey the  land  and  then  to  gyve  satis- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  51 

faction  and  not  before  and  he  and 
Mr.  Hall  say  they  think  ther  will  be 
nothyng  done  at  all." 

The  entry  shows  that  Shakspere  had  a  talk 
about  the  enclosure  with  his  son-in-law,  Dr. 
Hall,  and  the  upshot  of  the  matter  was  that 
they  had  reached  the  conclusion  that  "ther 
will  be  nothyng  done  at  all." 

Those  who  have  read  as  many  books  as  my- 
self, called  A  Life  of  "Shakespeare,"  will  not 
be  surprised  to  find  this  entry  perverted  by 
the  garbler  of  quotations  by  means  of  the  con- 
venient expedient  of  substituting  "should"  for 
"will." 

And  then  as  though  it  were  the  correct  read- 
ing say  that  Shakespeare  (Shakspere),  "is  tak- 
ing things  easy." 

However,  the  Corporation  had  no  such  as- 
surance for  they  were  not  permitted  by  the 
Combe-Shakspere  Camp  "to  take  things  easy" 
as  the  attempted  design  of  enclosure  not  only 
incites  public  disturbance  at  home  but  stirs 
the  nation. 

What  a  time  for  "taking  things  easy!" 
Eighty-five  houses  and  many  huts  had  of  late 
been  burned  and  were  still  smoldering.  In 
the  midst  of  extremest  desolation  hundreds  of 


52          SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

people  in  his  native  village  were  without  shel- 
ter, depressed  by  the  sickening  sense  of  home- 
lessness  and  children's  cries,  pinched  with 
want  of  food;  fathers  and  mothers  who  had 
shared  the  sports  of  his  childhood  evoking  the 
memories  of  home  which  years  have  no  power 
to  stifle.  Surely  their  cry  of  distress  and  need 
should  have  been  a  check  upon  Shakspere's 
greediness,  whether  or  not  he  was  the  poet  and 
dramatist. 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Shak- 
spere  was  much  of  the  time  in  Stratford  while 
its  inhabitants  were  in  a  state  of  high  excite- 
ment, although  he  is  supposed  to  have  severed 
all  connection  with  the  company  at  the  Globe 
(Theatre).  But  it  seems  probable  that  Shak- 
spere,  according  to  Dr.  C.  W.  Wallace,  retains 
his  lodging  at  the  wig-maker's,  one  Mount- 
joy,  who  lived  at  the  corner  of  Silver  and 
Mugwell  Streets,  London.  Although  living 
idly  with  the  wig-maker  in  Silver  Street  "the 
region  of  money,"  Shakspere  had  little  incli- 
nation to  slip  out  of  London  and  mingle  with 
his  tumultuous  and  riotous  confederates.  He 
is  too  prudent  a  man  to  do  such  a  thing  as 
that;  he  means  to  deprive  the  people  of  their 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  53 

rights  in  the  common  fields  in  such  a  way  as 
to  keep  his  own  person  in  perfect  safety. 

During  the  struggle  a  brave  fearlessness 
distinguished  the  faithful  town  clerk,  Thomas 
Greene,  as  a  champion  of  popular  rights  who 
records  in  his  Diary  how  the  one  who  drew  up 
the  "Articls"  tempted  him: 

"On  Wednesday  being  the  llth  day 
(January)  At  night  Mr.  Repling- 
ham  supped  with  me  and  Mr.  W. 
Barnes  was  to  beare  him  company 
when  he  assured  me  before  Mr. 
Barnes  that  I  should  be  well  dealt 
withall  confessing  former  promesses 
by  himself  Mr.  Manynyng  and  his 
agreement  for  me  with  my  Cosen 
Shakspeare." 

Mr.  Mainwaring  referred  to,  like  Shak- 
spere,  co-operated  with  Combe  Brothers,  and 
writes  Halliwell-Phillips, — "had  been  practi- 
cally bribed  by  some  land  arrangement  at 
Welcombe."  How  about  Shakspere? 

Inasmuch  as  the  Aldermen  in  those  letters 
to  Mainwaring, — which  is  doubtless  a  coun- 
terpart of  the  one  to  Shakspere  under  date  De- 
cember 23,  1614, — say:  "We  here  that  some 
land  is  conveyed  to  you  in  Welcombe  and  that 
you  intend  enclosure." 


54  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Bribed  or  not  Combe,  Mainwaring  and 
Shakspere  "were  acting  in  unison  when  re- 
strained by  the  Court's  order  against  them." 
In  such  a  juncture  had  Shakspere  been  a  man 
of  the  people — "one  of  them" — it  is  certain 
the  Corporation  would  never  have  addressed 
a  letter  of  remonstrance  to  him  on  the  subject 
of  enclosures,  for  he  would  not  have  counte- 
nanced an  attempted  enclosure  of  the  common 
fields;  but  instead  should  have  brought  an  ac- 
tion on  his  own  account  against  Combe  broth- 
ers, not  only  for  trespass  but  for  the  deprecia- 
tion of  his  profits  as  tithe-owner  legally  due 
him,  for  he  had  bought  the  32-years  lease  of 
part  of  Stratford  tithes,  and  also  a  suit  against 
them  in  the  Star  Chamber  for  riots.  But  in- 
stead Shakspere  showed  a  stubborn  resistance 
in  his  opposition  to  his  fellow-townsmen  in 
their  struggle  to  preserve  their  inheritance, 
and  a  determination  to  "feather  his  own  nest" 
by  making  conditions  with  Mainwaring  and 
Replingham  (who  were  acting  for  Combe), 
which  secured  himself  from  all  possible  loss 
by  approving  of,  and  helping  forward  a 
scheme  to  fleece  poor  people  of  Stratford  of 
their  ancient  common  fields. 

Shakspere  and  Mainwaring  it  seems,  were 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  55 

fighting  the  Corporation  on  a  contingent  fee, 
but  Combe  and  his  coterie  having  lost  the  case 
they  got  nothing — for  the  land  arrangements 
at  Welcombe,  if  any  were  promised,  were 
never  fulfilled.  But  nevertheless,  had  it  not 
been  for  their  great  wealth  the  four  rapacious 
disturbers  of  the  public  tranquility,  William 
and  Thomas  Combe,  William  Shakspere  and 
Arthur  Mainwaring,  would  have  received  in 
all  probability  a  good  sousing  in  the  Avon 
for  their  attempt  to  strip  the  town  of  its  rights 
in  the  common  fields  by  starting  an  insurrec- 
tion, and  a  jail  sentence  to  boot. 

In  the  time  of  Elizabeth  the  Great  and 
James  the  little  they  had  a  summary  and  cruel 
way  of  dealing  with  poor  men,  and  a  pro- 
tracted and  tender  way  of  dealing  with  rich 
men.  The  bailiff,  Francis  Smyth,  Senior,  and 
the  Counselors,  in  the  letter  on  December  23, 
1614,  to  Mainwaring,  which  is — say  writers 
in  no  wise  partial  to  heresy — the  counterpart 
of  that  to  Shakspere. 

"We  here  that  some  land  is  conveyed  to  you 
in  Welcombe  and  that  you  intend  enclosure. 
We  entreat  you  to  call  to  mind  the  manifold 
great  and  often  miseries  the  B rough  hath  sus- 
tained by  casualties  of  fires  fresh  in  memory 


56  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

and  now  of  late  one  dying  in  the  ashes  of  deso- 
lation" (and  beseech  you  Mr.  Mainwaring) 
"in  your  Christian  meditation  to  bethink  you 
that  such  inclosure  will  tend  to  the  great  dis- 
abling of  performence  of  those  good  meanings 
of  that  godly  King  (Edward  VI)  to  the  ruyn 
of  this  brough  wherein  live  above  seven  hun- 
dred poor  which  receive  almes  whose  curses 
and  clamours  will  be  poured  out  to  God 
against  the  enterprise  of  such  a  thing."  (Whe- 
ler  Papers). 

When  the  dreadful  fire  took  place  in  1614, 
Shakspere  was  fifty  years  of  age,  and  his 
memory  unfolded  the  succession  of  frightful 
fires,  1594-1598-1614,  all  within  the  short  time 
of  twenty  years.  His  kinsman,  Thomas 
Greene,  Clerk  to  the  Aldermen,  amidst  these 
distressful  scenes  of  desolation  wrote  a  private 
letter  to  "my  Cosen  Shakspere."  The  cold, 
raw  wind  wrailed  mournfully  on  that  drear 
Christmas  morning  of  1614,  when  amid  pres- 
ent gloom  he  kindled  Shakspere's  mind  with 
the  memories  of  a  terrible  past.  How  that  for 
the  third  time  the  Corporation  was  forced  to 
petition  the  Queen  for  the  remission  of  taxes, 
the  homeless  people  calling  for  shelter  and 
food.  And  now  the  Corporation  is  asking  to 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  57 

be  relieved  of  the  care  of  their  seven  hundred 
poor  which  received  alms,  and  if  the  riotous 
Combe,  Mainwaring  and  Shakspere  are  not 
restrained  by  order  of  Court  the  Corporation 
will  be  forced  to  petition  the  Queen  for  per- 
mission to  collect  for  their  poor  in  the  neigh- 
boring towns  and  counties.  For  enclosures  at 
Welcombe  meant  decay  of  tillage  in  the  com- 
mon fields,  a  reduction  of  tithes  from  which 
were  endowed  their  school  and  almshouses 
and  repair  of  bridge. 

The  year  1615  saw  the  storm  of  battle  rise 
with  pitiless  fury.  Just  at  that  time  the  leader 
of  the  band  of  rioters,  Mr.  William  Combe, 
had  been  made  High  Sheriff  of  the  County, 
charged  with  the  conservation  of  the  peace 
and  the  execution  of  the  mandates  of  the 
courts.  But  instead,  the  very  officer  commis- 
sioned by  the  Crown  to  prevent  riots,  was  him- 
self engaged  in  a  riot  and  had  the  audacity  to 
question  my  Lord  Chief  Justice's  authority. 
No  wonder  that  in  the  petition  of  the  27th  of 
March,  1615,  the  Corporation  asked  that  the 
High  Sheriff  should  be  restrained.  Thomas 
Greene  says  in  his  Diary  on  the  5th  Decem- 
ber, that  six  of  the  company  (himself  among 
them)  were  to  "go  to  Mr.  Combe  and  present 


58  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

their  loves  and  desire  he  would  be  pleased  to 
forbeare  the  enclosing.  They  went  on  the  9th. 
Mr.  Thomas  Combe  said  'they  were  all  currs' 
and  spoke  of  spitting — one  of  the  dogs." 

Thomas  Greene  writes  "that  on  7th  Janu- 
ary William  Combe  had  told  Baylis  that  some 
of  the  better  sort  ment  to  go  and  throw  down 
the  ditches,"  (ditch  fences),  round  the  land 
Combe,  Mainwaring  and  Shakspere  attempt- 
ed to  enclose,  and  added, — "I  would  they 
durst  in  a  threatening  manner  with  very  great 
passion  and  anger."  Nevertheless,  some  of 
the  corporation  went  themselves  to  prevent  a 
breach  of  the  peace  and  filled  in  the  ditches. 
They  were  personally  maltreated  by  the  gang 
of  rioters,  Stephen  Sly,  a  servile  assistant 
among  them,  said  that  "if  the  best  in  Stratford 
were  to  go  there  to  throw  the  ditch  down  he 
would  bury  his  head  at  the  bottom."  William 
Combe  said,  "They  were  a  company  of  fac- 
tious knaves  they  were  puritan  knaves  and  un- 
derlings in  the  colour  and  he  will  do  them  all 
the  harm  he  can."  However,  while  the  battle 
raged  the  remainder  of  the  ditches  were  being 
filled  in  by  women  and  children. 

On  the  12th  of  January  (1614-15)  Mr. 
Replingham,  spokesman  for  Combe,  Main- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  59 

waring  and  Shakspere,  came  to  the  hall  hop- 
ing to  bring  over  the  company  to  give  consent 
to  their  wicked  scheme,  but  the  bailiff  said  he 
would  never  agree  to  their  nefarious  scheme 
as  long  as  he  lived.  Then  Mr.  Replingham 
wanted  him  to  bind  some  of  the  inhabitants 
over  to  good  behaviour.  Thomas  Greene  said 
he  would  not  bind  them  for  all  his  Clerk's 
fees.  The  sturdy  honesty  of  the  Town  Clerk 
is  here  manifest. 

On  the  25th  of  January  Mr.  Chandler  and 
Mr.  Daniel  Baker  went  to  London  for  the 
Corporation  to  take  an  attorney's  opinion  as 
to  legal  action,  and  on  the  24th  of  February 
they  took  Chief  Justice  Coke's  opinion.  On 
the  22nd  of  March  Mr.  Chandler,  for  the 
Corporation,  did  present  a  petition  to  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice  at  Coventry  and  William 
Combe,  leader  of  these  disturbers  of  the  pub- 
lic peace,  called  him  (Chandler)  a  knave  and 
a  liar  to  his  face. 

The  Lord  Chief  Justice  bade  Chandler  re- 
mind him  of  the  case  when  he  came  to  War- 
wick on  the  27th  (1615).  When  reminded  by 
Chandler,  and  in  reply  to  a  petition  from  the 
Town  Council  on  March  27,  1615,  the  Chief 
Justice,  Sir  Edward  Coke,  declared  from  the 


60    SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

bench  at  Warwick  that  the  enclosures  set  at  de- 
fiance the  law  of  the  realm:  "that  noe  enclos- 
ure shall  be  made  within  the  parish  of  Strat- 
ford for  that  yt  is  agynst  the  Lawes  of  the 
Realme  neither  by  Mr.  Combes  nor  any 
other." 

On  the  12th  April  Mr.  Alderman  Parsons 
reported  that  he  had  been  beaten  by  Mr. 
Combe's  men  and  the  tenants  complained  that 
they  had  been  railed  at  by  Mr.  Combe  for 
plowing  on  their  own  land  within  the  intended 
enclosure.  The  Corporation  told  Mr.  Combe 
that  they  desired  his  good-will  but  they  would 
ever  withstand  the  inclosure  for,  said  they, 
"We  are  all  sworn  men  for  the  good  of  the 
Borough  and  to  preserve  their  inheritance 
therefor  they  would  not  have  it  said  in  future 
time  they  were  the  men  which  gave  way  to  the 
undoing  of  the  town  and  that  all  three  fires 
were  not  so  great  a  loss  to  the  town  as  the  en- 
closures would  be." 

On  21  February,  1615-16,  the  Corporation 
agreed  that  the  charges  to  preserve  their  in- 
heritance should  be  defrayed  out  of  the  reve- 
nue. The  Corporation  had  been  forced  into 
great  expense?  They  sent  the  Town  Clerk, 
Thomas  Greene,  often  to  Warwick  and  to 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  61 

London  and  all  because  of  William  Combe 
and  William  Shakspere's  rapacious  greed  and 
insatiate  money-hunger.  William  Shakspere 
was  the  only  one  of  the  four  persons  conspicu- 
ously engaged  in  the  struggle  to  wrongfully 
dispossess  the  Corporation  of  its  rights  in  the 
common  fields,  in  defiance  of  the  Court's  or- 
ders who  was  a  native  of  Stratford-on-Avon. 
Mainwaring  resided  in  London,  the  Combes 
came  to  Stratford  from  North  Warwickshire. 

There  were  as  many  as  thirty  tithe  owners, 
the  largest,  Richard  'Lane,  having  an  interest 
worth  eighty  pounds  to  Shakepere's  sixty 
pounds — Shakspere  having  the  next  largest 
share.  But  unlike  Shakspere,  Lane  was 
friendly  to  the  cause  of  popular  rights;  this 
may  be  inferred  inasmuch  as  the  Corporation 
addressed  no  letter  of  remonstrance  to  him  on 
the  subject  of  enclosures. 

Thomas  Greene,  Town  Clerk,  says  in  his 
Diary  that  the  "Company  had  written  through 
him  to  Mr.  Mainwaring  and  to  Mr.  Shak- 
spere." Unlike  "my  cousin  Shakspere,"  the 
Town  Clerk,  Thomas  Greene,  took  prompt 
and  effective  action  in  behalf  of  the  townsmen 
who  had  reposed  trust  in  him,  in  refusing  to 
approve  or  help  the  land-grabbing  scheme 


62  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

forward,  "and  <was  much  excepted  to  for  his 
opposition." 

The  exceptioners  were  the  disturbers  of  the 
public  peace,  Combe,  Mainwaring  and  Shak- 
spere,  for  they  defied  the  law  of  the  realm  in 
their  nefarious  attempt  to  enclose  the  common 
fields  "within  the  parish  of  Stratford."  The 
faithful  Town  Clerk's  "opposition"  may  ac- 
count for  the  fact  that  his  lawyer  cousin, 
Thomas  Greene,  was  not  remembered  i  n 
Shakspere's  Will. 

It  should  be  noted 'when  Shakepere  set 
about  making  his  Will  his  kinsman,  Thomas 
Greene,  a  well-informed  lawyer  who  held  the 
office  of  Town  Clerk,  and  who  acted  as  solic- 
itor and  counselor  for  the  Corporation,  be- 
came Judge  of  the  Stratford  Court  of  Record 
and  Clerk  to  the  aldermen  who  had  recently 
acted  as  his  (Shakspere's)  legal  adviser  in  the 
matter  of  the  Stratford  enclosures  at  Wei- 
combe.  Advice  which  Shakspere  we  know  did 
not  accept.  He  was  manifestly  wrathful  and 
sought  the  services  of  Francis  Collins  who 
was  practicing  at  Warwick,  and  was  much  in 
the  esteem  of  the  Combe  family.  Note  the 
fact  that  Thomas  Greene,  who  gave  Shak- 
spere legal  assistance  in  the  Addenbroke  and 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE" 


63 


iarker  suits  was  still  residing  in  Stratford  at 
the  time  of  the  making  of  Shakspere's  Will, 
but  his  services  were  not  sought  in  the  draft- 
ing and  he  was  not  a  legatee  under  Shak- 
spere's  Will  as  was  Francis  Collins. 


Thomas  Greene. 

Thomas  Greene,  Shakspere's  lawyer  cousin, 
was  counselor  at  law  of  the  Middle  Temple, 
was  admitted  to  that  Inn  on  November  20, 
1595,  and  was  called  to  the  bar  on  October  29, 
1600,  but  did  not  quit  Stratford  till  1617,  a 
year  after  his  kinsman  William  Shakspere's 
death,  when  he  became  identified  with  Lon- 
don and  attained  considerable  eminence  at  the 
metropolitan  bar,  becoming  autumn  reader  of 


64  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

his  Inn  in  1621  and  treasurer  in  1629.     (Mid- 
dle Temple  Branch  Book). 

We  are  not  surprised  that  no  mention  was 
made  in  his  will  of  his  cousin  Thomas  Greene, 
who  was  still  vigorously  opposing  Shakspere's 
attempt  to  enclose  the  common  land  of  the 
town,  at  the  very  time  the  document  was 
signed,  March  25,  1616,  by  William  Shak- 
spere  of  Stratford  in  the  presence  of  five 
neighbors. 

Nor  is  it  a  matter  of  surprise  that  Thomas 
Combe,  hot  from  the  field  of  strife  at  Wei 
combe,  enraged  at  the  resistance  shown  by  the 
townsmen,  was  commemorated  by  Shakspere 
in  his  Will:  "To  Mr.  Thomas  Combe,  my 
sword."  With  energy  he  was  still  pressing 
his  own  and  Shakspere's  pretended  right  to 
enclose  the  borough's  common  lands  adjoin- 
ing the  town.  The  Thomas  Combe  who  was 
William  Shakspere's  especial  friend  and  con- 
federate, the  domineering  adversary  of  the 
townsmen,  who  when  asked  by  the  aldermen 
and  the  Town  Clerk  "to  for  bear  the  enclos- 
ing", said  "they  were  all  curs"  (cowardly 
dogs). 

What  became  of  Shakspere's  sword?  Its 
legatee,  Mr.  Thomas  Combe,  directed  his  ex- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE" 


65 


ecutor  by  his  Will,  dated  June  20,  1656,  to 
convert  all  his  personal  property  into  money 
and  to  lay  it  out  in  the  purchase  of  land. 

It  has  never  been  a  matter  of  surprise  to  me 
that  Thomas  Combe,  an  old  brother  in  arms, 
should  have  received  Shakspere's  trenchant 
blade,  for  it  is  not  strange  that  Shakspere 
should  not  recall  the  history  of  trials,  priva- 
tions, sacrifices  and  bloodless  scenes,  through 
which  he  knew  Thomas  Combe,  the  younger 
nephew  of  his  old  friend  John  Combe,  the  no- 
torious usurer  and  litigant,  had  passed  at  Wei- 
combe. 

There  was  still  room  for  the  execution  of 
heroic  deeds  for  there  was  hope  that  the  wo- 
men and  children,  who  were  then  busy  with 
shovel  and  hoe  filling  in  the  ditches,  might  be 
made  to  falter  and  blench,  while  they  on  the 
contrary,  quailed  not  but  laughed  at  the  shak- 
ing of  Shakspere's  sheeny  sword. 

However,  Thomas  Combe's  Will  shows 
that  the  legatee,  forty  years  after  his  benefi- 
cent friend's  death  did  not  highly  regard 
Shakspere's  bequest.  Why?  Surely  no  con- 
firmation here  of  the  identification  of  the 
Stratford  man's  non-literary  personality  with 
the  supreme  poet  of  our  modern  world. 


66  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

William  Shakspere  bequeathed  sums  of 
money  wherewith  to  buy  memorial  rings  for 
four  townsmen  and  three  "fellows"  or  play- 
ers, but  did  not  extend  his  testamentary 
benefactions  to  his  wife's  relations,  the 
Hathaways.  The  slightness  of  his  regard 
for  his  wife's  family  is  marked  by  his  con- 
temptible remembrance — a  paltry  legacy  to 
her  by  an  interlineation  of  his  second-best 
bed,  with  the  furniture.  No  Will  except 
Shakspere's  is  known  in  which  a  bed  forms 
the  wife's  sole  bequest.  He  had  also  barred 
her  dower  under  the  terms  of  the  Will,  he 
had  excluded  her  from  the  enjoyment  of 
ownership  after  his  death  of  her  home. 

Although  Shakspere  scattered  pieces  of 
money  pretty  freely  by  his  Will  among  his 
friends  and  acquaintances,  only  one  ungen- 
erous bequest,  the  rich  man's  mite,  the  sum 
of  ten  pounds  "unto  the  poor  of  Stratford." 
But  not  a  single  bequest  to  poet  or  play- 
maker  under  the  Will.  This  fact  taken  in 
connection  with  many  other  pregnant  facts 
in  which  more  is  implied  than  penned,  speak 
negatively  of  Shakspere's  association  with 
the  poets. 

Thomas  Greene,  Town  Clerk,  notes  in  his 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE' 


67 


Diary,  (September,  1615):  "Mr.  Shaks- 
peare  telling  J.  Greene  that  I  was  not  able 
to  beare  the  enclosing  of  Welcombe." 

J.  Greene  was  the  Town  Clerk's  brother 
John,  to  whom  were  spoken  the  latest  re- 
corded words  which  Shakspere  gave  expres- 
sion to  in  September,  1615,  a  little  while  be- 
fore he  went  down  to  the  grave. 

There  is  a  class  of  writers  who  read  into 
this  entry  in  Greene's  Diary  in,  "I  was  not 
able"  as,  "he,"  to  suit  their  predetermination 
to  read  Shakspere  into  the  record  as  a  cham- 
pion of  popular  rights.  They  read  into 
Shakspere  not  the  things  he  really  did  but 
the  things  they  thought  should  fit  into  a 
poet's  life,  assuming  the  thing  they  vainly 
endeavored  to  prove. 

Why  the  September  entry  should  have 
been  chronicled  at  all,  writes  Halliwell- 
Phillips,  is  a  mystery.  We  see  nothing  puz- 
zling or  hard  to  understand  in  the  last  ob- 
servation— September,  1615.  The  wording 
of  the  entry  implies  that  Shakspere  told  John 
Greene  that  his  brother,  Thomas  Greene,  the 
writer  of  the  Diary,  was  against  the  enclos- 
ures. Shakspere  had  learned  of  the  Town 
Clerk's  continued  hostility  to  the  nefarious 


68  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

scheme  from  Mr.  Replingham,  the  agent  of 
the  combine,  who  could  doubtless  have  been 
heard  telling  Shakespere,  Mainwaring  and 
the  Combes — parties  to  an  association  of  four 
persons — to  commit  an  unlawful  act,  all 
about  Thomas  Greene's  continued  opposition 
to  the  scheme  of  enclosure  and  how  he  was 
schemingly  tempted;  how  much  excepted  to 
for  his  opposition  to  the  scheme  of  enclosure 
by  the  land  vandals  (1614-18)  ;  and  how  he 
spurned  the  price  of  corruption. 

Nevertheless,  the  Town  Clerk  could  not 
be  swerved  the  breadth  of  a  hair  from  the 
line  of  his  defense  of  the  town.  The  alder- 
men had  reposed  trust  in  him,  surely  the  Cor- 
poration must  have  been  proud  of  their 
bribe-less  Clerk,  who  notes  in  his  Diary: 

aAt  Warwick  Assisses  in  Lent  1615- 
1616  my  Lord  Justice  willed  him 
(W  Combe)  to  sett  his  heart  at  rest 
he  should  neyther  enclose  nor  lay 
down  any  earrable  nor  plow  any  an- 
cient greensward." 

Rowe,  Shakspere's  first  biographer,  who 
had  not  read  the  Miscellaneous  Documents 
at  Stratford-on-Avon,  and,  of  course,  knew 
very  little  about  the  subject  of  his  memoir, 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE' 


69 


observes  that  "His  pleasurable  Wit  and 
Good-nature  engaged  him  in  the  acquaint- 
ance and  entitled  him  to  the  friendship  of  the 
Gentlemen  of  the  neighborhood  amongst 
them  it  is  a  story  almost  still  remembered  in 
that  Country  that  he  had  a  particular  Inti- 
macy with  a  Mr.  Combe,  an  Old  Gentleman 
noted  thereabouts  for  his  Wealth  and 
Usury." 

We  learn  from  the  Records  at  Stratford 
that  Shakspere  had  a  particular  intimacy  also 
with  two  of  the  old  gentleman's  nephews, 
William  and  Thomas  Combe,  disturbers  of 
the  local  peace;  who  play  the  autocrat,  who 
torment  and  bully  the  poor  and  who  flatter 
and  bribe  the  rich.  The  nature  of  which  dis- 
closed by  the  entries  in  Greene's  Diary  and 
the  Corporation  Records: 

"7th  April,  1615,  being  Goodfryday 
Mr.  Barber  comyng  to  Colledge  to 
Mr.  T.  Combe  about  a  debt  he  stood 
surety  for  Miss  Quyny,  W  Combe 
willed  his  brother  to  shew  Mr.  Bar- 
ber noe  favour  and  threatened  him 
that  he  should  be  served  upp  to  Lon- 
don within  a  fortnight  (and  so  yt  fell 
out)". 


70  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Mrs.  Quinley  failed  to  meet  the  obligation. 
Thomas  Barber  had  become  surety  for  the 
loan  and  asked  for  some  time  in  order  to  meet 
the  liability.  Combe  Brothers,  however, 
would  show  Mr.  Barber  no  favour  but 
threatened  to  send  him  to  jail.  The  cruel 
prosecution  here  noted  by  the  Town  Clerk 
crushed  Mr.  Barber's  fortunes,  his  health  was 
shattered  and  his  wife  was  buried  August  10, 
1615..  Broken-hearted  he  followed  her  to  the 
grave  five  days  later. 

On  September  Sth,  Green's  Diary  shows 
that  Shakspere  sent  for  the  executors  of  Mr. 
Barker  (Barber),  "to  agree  as  ye  said  with 
them  for  Mr.  Barber's  interest." 

I  fail  to  see  in  Shakspere's  action  a  philan- 
thropic intent,  "but  instead  a  Speculator's  in- 
tent," and  not,  as  Sir  Sidney  Lee  puts  it, 
"benevolently  desirous  of  relieving  Barber's 
estate."  But  more  especially  to  help  his 
friend  and  militant  associate,  Thomas  Combe, 
secure  the  repayment  of  the  loan  which  he 
had  made  Mrs.  Quiney  and  which  Barber  be- 
came surety  for,  expediting  with  the  least  pos- 
sible loss  in  time  and  money. 

Thomas  Greene  notes  in  his  Diary, 
"Charges  of  Mr.  Barber  and  Mr.  Jeffrey  in 


PACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  71 

riding  to  London  for  search  in  the  rolles  for 
my  Lord  of  Essex's  patent."  The  Town 
Clerk's  entry  notes  the  fact  that  Thomas  Bar- 
ber, who  was  described  as  a  gentleman  of 
Shattery  and  was  thrice  bailiff  of  Stratford, 
in  1578,  1586  and  1594,  had  done  work  of  im- 
portance for  the  Corporation. 

The  eminent  and  indefatigable  Mrs.  C.  C. 
Stopes  writes,  "It  had  always  been  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  me  that  Thomas  Greene,  who 
mentioned  the  death  of  Mr.  Barber,  did  not 
mention  the  death  of  Shakespeare."  (Shaks- 
pere).  It  is  a  matter  of  surprise  indeed,  see- 
ing that  his  kinsman,  Thomas  Greene,  had 
been  his  legal  advisor  for  so  many  years, 
whether  "cousin  Shakspere"  was  or  was  not 
the  poet  in  question. 

Is  it  not  also  a  matter  of  surprise  that 
Thomas  Greene — Shakspere's  cousin — never 
alludes  to  him  as  poet  or  dramatist.  In  fact, 
no  one  among  his  many  Stratford  friends, 
neighbors  and  relations  ever  did.  The  omis- 
sion of  Shakspere's  name  in  his  son-in-law's 
(Dr.  Hall)  book  of  "Cures"  is  a  matter  of 
surprise.  "This  was  the  one  great  failure  of 
his  life,"  says  Mrs.  Stopes  (Shakspere's  Fam- 
ily p.  82).  Dr.  Hall  never  alludes  to  his 


72  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

wife's  father  as  poet  or  dramatist. 

Mr.  Stevenson's  discovery  of  the  Steward's 
book  of  the  household  expenses  incurred  at 
Belvoir,  by  Earl  of  Rutland,  from  Aug.,  1612, 
to  Aug.,  1613,  is  also  matter  of  surprise  and 
disappointment  to  the  scholarly  Mrs.  Stopes, 
because  "Mr.  Shakspeare"  is  discovered  in  a 
situation  inconsistent  with  the  activities  of  a 
poet,  who  instead  of  writing  sublimest  songs 
and  immortal  plays  was  engaged  with  Dick 
Burbage  working  at  the  Earl  of  Rutland's 
new  device — a  mere  triviality — for  a  paltry 
sum  of  forty-four  shillings. 

"It  did  not  quite  fit  into  the  known  facts 
of  the  poet's  career,"  says  Mrs.  Stopes,  when 
the  fact  is  it  fitted  to  a  Tee  into  "the  known 
facts"  of  the  life  of  "him  who  sleeps  by 
Avon."  There  is  nothing  puzzling  in  the  en- 
try when  read  as  written  in  the  Account  of 
Thomas  Screven,  the  Earl  of  Rutland's  clerk: 

"1613,  Item  31  Mortii,  to  Mr.  Shak- 
speare in  gold  about  my  Lord's  im- 
press XLIII  JS;  to  Richard  Bur- 
bage for  paynting  and  making  yt  in 
gold  XLII  JS— LIVII  JS." 

The  practice  of  substituting  "poet"  for  the 
name  Shakspere  of  Stratford  by  the  Strat- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  73 

fordians  in  their  writings  when  referring  to 
the  Stratford  "Miscellaneous  Documents," 
Greene's  Diary,  Wheler  Papers,  contained  in 
the  Stratford  Archives,  is  as  reprehensible 
as  was  the  amplifications  of  Jordan  and  the 
fabrications  of  Steevens  in  a  vain  attempt  to 
prove  a  Stratfordian  authorship.  No  Strat- 
ford record  contemporaneous  with  him  con- 
tains a  reference  to  Shakspere  as  a  poet  or 
writer. 

When  the  Greeks  of  the  olden  time  spoke 
of  Homer  they  did  not  at  all  times  call  him 
by  name.  They  said  the  poet.  We  might 
thus  speak  with  as  much  assurance  when  the 
author  of  the  immortal  plays,  "Shakespeare," 
and  the  author  of  the  great  Greek  epics, 
"Homer" — who  are  about  equally  shadowy 
and  about  equally  pre-eminent — are  allowed 
to  take  rank  under  pseudonymous  names. 

William  Combe,  the  chief  rioter,  continued 
to  live  a  long  time.  He  died  at  Stratford  on 
January  30,  1666-7,  at  the  age  of  eighty,  nearly 
fifty  years  after  his  defeat,  and  was  buried  in 
the  Parish  Church  where  his  co-militant 
friend,  William  Shakspere,  lies  buried;  where 
a  monument  commemorates  him  also,  but  not 
fearfully  guarded  by  the  calling  down  of 


74  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

curses.  However,  William  Combe  was  for- 
tunate in  the  time  of  his  death,  half  a  century 
after  he  sued  for  pardon,  but  withal  most 
fortunate  in  making  money,  which  enabled 
him  to  keep  out  of  prison  on  paying  a  fine  of 
four  pounds  and  the  expense  of  restoring  the 
lands  to  the  condition  in  which  they  were  in 
the  summer  of  1614. 

If  William  Combe  was  fortunate  in  the 
time  of  his  death  when  his  warfare  with  his 
neighbors  was  over,  then  his  friend  and  con- 
federate, William  Shakspere,  was  unfortunate 
in  the  time  of  his  death  in  the  midst  of  the 
struggle.  It  is  true  that  Shakspere  dying  in 
1616,  was  spared  the  humiliation  of  a  sum- 
mons to  appear  before  the  Privy  Council  for 
contumacy.  On  the  other  hand,  Combe's  fam- 
ily and  friends  were  spared  the  necessity  of 
having  to  chisel  an  opprobrious  epitaph  on 
the  tomb  to  prevent  distinterment.  For  had 
William  Combe  made  his  exit  from  this 
world  when  William  Shakspere  did  in  1616, 
or  at  any  time  during  the  struggle  from  the 
autumn  of  1614  to  the  beginning  of  1619,  in 
order  to  preserve  his  tomb  from  desecration, 
his  family  like  the  Shakspere  family,  would 
probably  have  inscribed  on  it  a  maledictory 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  75 

epitaph  though  not  in  the  Stratford-Shakspere 
doggerel.  For  unlike  the  Shakspere  family 
the  Combe  family  was  versed  in  scholastic 
learning.  William  Combe  had  entered  the 
Middle  Temple  on  October  17,  1602,  though 
not  called  to  the  bar. 

Unlike  William  Combe,  who  journeyed  all 
the  length  of  life's  long  eventide,  taking  the 
last  slow  steps  with  staff  and  crutch,  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon,  when  the 
end  came  had  passed  but  a  little  way  beyond 
the  noon-time  of  life.  Yet  he  had  lived  too 
long.  Had  he  died  in  the  early  months  of  the 
year  1614,  before  the  riot,  the  opprobrious 
doggerel  epitaph  would  never  have  been  cut 
on  Shakspere's  tomb. 

This  was  the  life  Shakspere  chose  to  live 
when  he  strove  to  deprive  the  little  thatched- 
roofed  town  were  he  was  born,  of  rights 
reaching  back  beyond  the  memory  of  tradi- 
tion. 

In  the  autumn  of  the  year  1615,  when  the 
end  was  near  at  hand,  Thomas  Greene, 
Shakspere's  attorney  and  kinsman,  penned  his 
last  note  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  en- 
closures. Shakspere  then  had  but  seven 
months  to  live  before  he  saw  the  last  of  earth 


76  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

on  April  23,  1616,  a  few  months  after  the 
Lord  Chief  Justice,  Sir  Edward  Coke,  had 
reiterated  his  warning. 

The  contemptuous  expressions  of  the  people 
may  have  been  audible  in  the  death  chamber 
at  New  Place,  since  William  Shakspere  of 
Stratford  chose  to  live  in  a  way  that  gave  of- 
fense to  the  poor  of  his  native  village,  so  that 
they  manifested  hatred  towards  him.  We  are 
warranted  in  believing  that  his  remains  were 
followed  to  the  grave  by  some  persons  having 
a  desire  for  revenge,  and  it  must  needs  be  that 
his  bones  should  have  all  the  protection  that 
a  mean  and  coarse  epitaph  in  a  superstitious 
age  could  give. 

So  then,  in  order  to  preserve  Shakspere's 
grave  from  desecration,  the  Church  Wardens 
permitted  the  profanation  of  his  parish  church 
by  a  malediction.  And  for  the  same  reason 
Shakspere's  scholarly,  Puritanical  son-in-law, 
Dr.  John  Hall,  permitted  this  rude,  ignorant 
and  boorish  epitaph  to  be  engraved  on  the 
tomb,  said  by  certain  persons  of  the  "Strat- 
fordian  faith"  to  have  been  written  by  Shaks- 
pere himself. 

Surely  Shakspere  could  have  no  fear  that 
his  grave  would  be  violated  by  the  Puritans, 


•^•^.^mm' 

THE    GROUXD    BEFORE    LOXDOX    WAS    BUILT 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  77 

or  by  clerks  and  sextons.  But  that  this  haunt- 
ing fear  shown  in  his  epitaph  was  imparted  by 
the  lowly  dwellers  in  hovels,  who  although 
heavily  burdened  with  poverty,  show  a  con- 
stant determination  to  resist  Shakspere's  inva- 
sion of  their  rights. 

In  Mr.  M.  R.  B.  Wheler's  "History  and 
Antiquities  of  Stratford,  1806,"  "The  Strat- 
ford Corporation  Records"  and  "Green's 
Diary,"  are  contained  the  salient  particulars 
of  the  life  of  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford, 
which  his  biographers  dare  not  relate  or  his 
votaries  chisel  on  Shakspere's  stone.  How  the 
months  of  that  f atal*  year  was  spent,  how  he 
and  his  confederates  spared  no  effort  to  despoil 
the  dwellers  in  huts  where  the  ills  of  life  upon 
the  poor  are  heaviest,— 

"A  shattered  roof — a  naked  floor, 
A  table — a  broken  chair, 
And  a  wall  so  blank,  their  shadow 
-     they  thank 
For  sometimes  falling  there." 

III. 

I  call  to  remembrance  my  first  introduction 
to  "Shakespeare,"  in  my  earlier  days  "a  long 
time  gone."  It  seems  but  a  little  while  ago 


78  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

when  at  a  book-stall  I  exchanged  a  piece  of 
money  for  a  volume  containing  all  the  Plays 
usually  published  under  the  name  "Shakes- 
peare." Beginning  with  Hamlet,  I  read 
the  Plays  for  the  first  time  and  marveled  at 
the  wealth  of  literature  contained  in  them,  the 
author's  singular  mastery  of  general  erudi- 
tion, prodigious  intellect  and  transcendent  in- 
telligence, and  felt  constrained  to  read  the 
Life  of  the  supreme  poet  of  our  modern  world 
and  learn  the  facts  of  his  career  recorded  by 
his  supposed  biographers.  These  should 
clearly  interpret  his  character  to  us  and  make 
Shakspere's  life  harmonize  with  "Shakes- 
peare's" Works,  and  in  this  manner  establish 
the  identity  of  the  Stratford  Player  with  the 
Playwright.  So  I  began  the  search  in  the 
pages  of  his  earliest  narrator,  Nicholas  Rowe, 
who  tells  us  out  of  the  mouth  of  Thomas  Bet- 
terton,  the  actor,  all  that  he  knew  about 
Shakspere  personally,  in  less  than  five  thous- 
and words — mere  prattlement  of  no  bio- 
graphic interest  of  a  literary  kind,  unless  the 
mean  doggerels  about  a  usurious  person,  one 
Combe,  be  regarded  as  such. 

The  seventeenth  century  biographer,  who 
was  himself  a  dramatist  and  poet-laureate  to 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  79 

Queen  Anne  says — "I  must  owe  a  Particular 
Obligation  to  him  (Betterton)  for  the  most 
considerable  part  of  the  passages  relating  to 
his  (Shakspere's)  Life,  which  I  have  here 
transmitted  to  the  Public,  his  veneration  for 
the  memory  of  Shakespear  having  engaged 
him  to  make  a  journey  into  Warwickshire  on 
purpose  to  gather  up  what  remains  he  could, 
of  a  Name  for  which  he  had  so  great  a  Value." 
In  the  latter  years  of  Queen  Anne,  Thomas 
Betterton  "is  the  chief  glory  of  the  stage." 

Now  what  were  the  gleanings  gathered 
from  the  sheaves  of  the  actor  which  places 
Rowe  under  "particular  obligation"?  Rowe, 
the  mouthpiece  of  Betterton,  told  the  after- 
date tattle  of  his  day  more  than  a  century  of 
years  after  date.  That  "He  (Shakspere) 
had  by  a  misfortune  common  enough  to  young 
fellows,  fallen  into  ill  company,  and  amongst 
them  some  that  made  a  frequent  practice  of 
Deer-Stealing  engaged  him  with  them  more 
than  once  in  robbing  a  park  that  belonged  to 
Sir  Thomas  Lucy  of  Charlecote,  near  Strat- 
ford. 

"For  this  he  was  prosecuted  by  that  gentle- 
man, to  that  degree  that  he  was  obliged  to 


80  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

leave  his  business  and  family  in  Warwick- 
shire and  shelter  himself  in  London." 

Notwithstanding  young  Shakspere  seemed 
to  be  struggling  with  the  meanest  necessities 
of  life,  still  I  cannot  agree  with  his  first  bio- 
grapher that  Will  was  a  game  thief,  or  as 
Archdeacon  Davies  says,  was  "much  given  to 
all  unluckiness  in  stealing  venison  and  rab- 
bits, particularly  from  Sir  Thomas  Lucy,  who 
had  him  oft  whipped  and  sometimes  im- 
prisoned." 

Now  is  it  a  fact  that  getting  into  scrapes 
is  common  enough  to  young  fellows  like 
Shakspere  that  had  been  three  years  married, 
who  was  about  twenty-one  years  old  and  the 
father  of  three  children?  However,  the 
abandonment  of  wife  and  children  should 
have  been  more  bitter  and  grievous  to  him 
than  the  accusation  of  game  thief. 

That  the  deer-stealing  yarn  has  a  solid  basis 
of  fact,  or  that  it  accords  with  attendant  con- 
ditions, is  I  think  groundless. 

However,  we  realize  the  seriousness  in  the 
position  of  one  who  finds  himself  the  father 
of  three  children,  the  two  youngest  twin-born, 
he  himself  still  a  minor  (under  age),  and  des- 
titute of  money.  Withal,  his  father  in  danger 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  81 

of  arrest  for  debt,  no  mistake  whatever  the 
cause.  Will  was  in  a  desperate  situation  when 
he  went  hiking  up  to  London  shortly  after  the 
baptism  of  the  twins.  In  connection  with,  and 
apart  from  Shakspere's  improvident  marriage, 
we  gather  from  subsequent  events  the  facts 
which  clearly  interpret  his  character  to  us; 
facts  however,  which  do  not  embrace  the  deer- 
stealing  story  and  which  is  now  with  many 
writers  on  the  subject  of  Shakespeare  an  ad- 
junct of  Shakespeare's  biography,  a  settled  be- 
lief with  them  which  does  not  they  say,  ad- 
mit of  a  reasonable  doubt.  But  does  it  make, 
or  help  to  make  an  obscure  and  profane  life, 
to  harmonize  with  the  immortal  verse?  The 
passage  in  "The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor" 
was  probably  the  source  of  the  fiction  instead 
of  a  reference  to  the  fact.  Getting  into  scrapes 
by  robbing  a  deer  park,  an  orchard,  a  melon- 
patch  or  hen-roost,  does  not  furnish  a  motive 
strong  enough  to  induce  young  Shakspere  to 
forsake  his  wife  and  children,  and  all  this  un- 
der no  severer  penalty  than  three  months'  im- 
prisonment. 

Most  all  the  biographers  of  Shakspere  con- 
done the  game  stealing  of  his  younger  days, 
but  several  of  them  fail  to  see  anything  that 


82  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

imparts  a  moral  obliquity  when  Shakspere  in 
his  elder  days  strove  to  practice  land-grabbing 
in  the  enclosures  of  the  Common  fields. 


U    V 


'Tis  bad  enough  in  man  or  woman, 
To  steal  a  goose  from  off  a  Common 

(field) 

But  surely  he's  without  excuse 
Who    steals    the    Common     (field) 

from  the  goose." 

Sir  George  G.  Greenwood  however,  tells  us 
that  "Deer  were  animals  ferae  naturae,  and  as 
such  were  not  the  subjects  of  larceny  at  the 
Common  law.  It  was  criminal  to  take  them 
in  a  royal  forest,  but  of  that  there  is  no  ques- 
tion here.  Further  there  were  statutes  which 
made  it  an  offense  to  kill  deer  in  a  park  im- 
paled." (See  5  Eliz.  C.  21).  We  know  that 
for  many  generations  the  students  of  Oxford 
had  been  the  most  notorious  game-thieves  in 
all  Britain.  Sir  Philip  Sydney's  MAY  LADY 
terms  deer-stealing,  "a  pretty  service,"  and 
B  aeon  says,  "It  is  a  sport  proper  to  the  no- 
bility and  men  of  better  rank,  and  it  is  to  keep 
a  difference  between  the  gentry  and  the  com- 


mon sort." 


The  law  of  Shakspere's  day  (5  Eliz.  C  21), 
punished  deer-stealers  with  three  months'  im~ 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  S3 

prisonment  and  a  payment  of  thrice  the 
amount  of  the  damage  done. 

About  forty  years  after  Rowe's  first  effort 
to  illustrate  Shakspere's  individual  life  was 
given  to  the  public  in  1709,  George  Steevens, 
the  game-cock  of  commentators,  plunged  into 
Shakespearean  criticism  and  gave  the  public 
that  digest  of  biography,  his  wee-little  life  of 
Shakspere,  which  was  the  second  attempt,  if 
so  it  may  be  called.  Notwithstanding  Steevens 
erudite  accomplishments  and  antiquarian 
knowledge,  he  was  not  inquisitive  in  the  mat- 
ter of  Shakespeare's  personal  history,  so  the 
material  for  its  composition  (Shakspere 
memoir),  was  drawn  from  facts  in  the  main 
recorded  by  Rowe,  and  it  consists  of  the  fol- 
lowing forty-five  words: 

"All  that  is  known  with  any  degree  of  cer- 
tainty concerning  Shakspere  is  that  he  was 
born  at  Stratford-on-Avon,  married  and  had 
children,  then  went  to  London  where  he  com- 
menced actor  and  wrote  poems  and  plays,  re- 
turned to  Stratford,  made  his  will,  died  and 
was  buried." 

On  the  other  hand  later  biographers  require 
hulky  bulky  volumes  to  record  their  spurious 
traditions  and  idle  conjectures. 


84  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Steevens  does  not  repeat  the  so-called  poach- 
ing story,  which  is  said  to  have  occasioned 
Will's  flight  to  London,  or  the  satirizing  tom- 
foolishness  about  a  "Mr.  Combe,  an  old  gen- 
tleman noted  for  his  wealth  and  usury";  nor 
is  there  any  allusion  to  that  old  chestnut  (the 
thousand  pound  tale) ,  which  has  become  fishy ; 
no  bolstering  up  the  Southampton-Shakes- 
peare fellowship,  although  now  a  feature  in 
all  fanciful  Shakespearean  biography. 

But  whenever  this  irrepressible  literary  "er- 
rant-knight" found  the  antiquaries  and  profes- 
sionally trained  students  of  literary  history 
priding  themselves  on  unusual  discernment  or 
critical  acumen  he  hoaxed  them  unmerci- 
fully. 

And  furthermore,  it  is  creditable  to 
Steevens  that  he  strove  to  facilitate  the  atten- 
tion of  Shakspere's  biography  by  cutting  out 
much  of  the  guess-work  and  such  stuff  as  the 
manufactured  biographic  legends,  although 
his  effort  in  this  direction  was  offset  in  part  by 
his  own  hoaxings. 

Rowe  says:  "The  later  part  of  his 
('Shakespeare's')  life  was  spent  as  all  men  of 
sense  will  wish  theirs  may  be,  in  ease,  retire- 
ment and  the  conversation  of  his  friends." 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  85 

Now  the  fact  is  Rowe  knew  nothing  about  the 
way  the  latter  part  of  Shakespeare's  life  was 
spent  and  who  his  friends  really  were.  How- 
ever, in  recent  years  the  antiquarians  have  got- 
ten in  their  work  on  the  subject  of  Rowe's 
memoir  by  unearthing  facts  which  show  how 
"the  latter  part  of  Shakspere's  (the  Stratford 
actor's)  life  was  spent"  and  who  his  associates 
were,  and  show  the  texture  of  character  the 
stuff  Shakspere's  life  was  made  of,  and  have 
made  us  see  that  the  life  he  chose  to  live  a 
man  of  letters  would  not  care  to  live.  Rowe 
did  not  know  that  two  of  Shakspere's  friends 
were  the  brothers  Combe,  notorious  disturbers 
of  the  public  peace.  And  yet  these  were  the 
very  men  with  whom  Shakspere  in  retirement 
held  conversation,  during  the  latter  part  of 
his  life,  which  resulted  in  a  combination  to 
take  possession  of  the  Stratford  Common 
Fields  by  trespassers  and  land-grabbers,  called 
the  "Vendals  of  1615,"  composed  of  William 
Combe,  William  Shakspere  and  Arthur 
Mainwaring.  This  invasion  of  popular  rights 
was  resented.  The  struggle  at  Stratford 
waged  and  the  townsmen  were  still  in  a  riotous 
state  of  resistance  at  the  time  of  Shakspere's 
death. 


86  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

When  Rowe  wrote  "Some  Account  of  the 
life  of  Mr.  William  Shakspere"  in  1709,  the 
Shakespeare  deposition  and  attached  signature 
"Willm  Shaks,"  or  Shak'p  in  the  Public  Rec- 
ord Office  had  not  been  the  subject-matter  of 
antiquarian  research.  No  one  prior  to  Pro- 
fessor Charles  William  Wallace'  researches 
before  1904,  "had  ever  examined  them  in  the 
course  of  three  centuries,"  which,  according 
to  Dr.  Wallace  bring  to  view.  The  family 
with  whom  Shakspere  lived,  one  Mountjoy- 
Wigmaker,  consisted  of  the  head  of  the  house, 
Christopher  Mountjoy;  Madame  Mountjoy 
and  their  daughter,  Mary;  also  Stephen  Bel- 
lott  and  William  Eaton,  who  were  boarding 
there  as  apprentices  to  learn  the  trade  of  wig- 
making;  also  Joan  Johnson,  servant,  who 
speaks  of  him  as  "one  Mr.  Shakespeare  that 
lay  in  the  house"  (he  had  lodgings  there). 

So  then  we  are  made  acquainted  with  six 
more  of  Shakspere's  friends  in  the  latter  part 
of  his  life,  with  whom  Shakspere  must  have 
had  almost  daily  conversation,  for  they  were 
all  living  under  the  same  roof  with  him  when 
he  dwelt  there  with  a  wig-maker  in  Silver 
Street,  London,  from  1598  to  1604,  and  had 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  87 

known  the  wig-maker  and  family  about  thir- 
teen years. 

Nevertheless  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  au- 
thorship, Dr.  Wallace  struggles  to  satisfy  a 
non-literary  situation  which  his  own  re- 
searches had  disclosed  by  conjecturing  that 
here  in  these  illiterate,  rude  and  base  sur- 
roundings the  supreme  poet  wrote  ten  of  his 
deathless  Plays,  including  "Hamlet,"  "Julius 
Caesar,"  "As  You  Like  It,"  "Macbeth"  and 
"Othello,"  etc.  A  mere  supposition  that  has 
no  basis  in  recorded  fact.  This  is  another  of 
the  many  baits  cast  to  lure  the  reader. 

The  partisans  of  the  Stratfordian  faith 
manifest  an  irrepressible  desire  to  represent 
Shakspere  as  a  champion  of  popular  rights, 
but  the  evidences  show  that  Shakspere  in  the 
latter  part  of  his  life  was  dead  set  against  the 
popular  side  and  during  the  last  months  of  his 
life  set  at  defiance  the  rights  of  the  people. 

Shakspere's  federation  with  Combe  and 
Mainwaring  in  the  land-grabbing  scheme,  the 
inclosure  of  Stratford  Common-fields,  was  due 
to  his  avidity  for  wealth,  to  an  intense  money- 
hunger  and  not  to  aristocratic  pretensions. 
This  is  shown  by  his  long  sojourn  with  the 
wig-maker,  whose  house  and  shop  were  under 


88  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

one  roof.  However,  Shakspere  was  not  like 
Combe,  arogant  in  temper;  nevertheless  we 
are  pretty  certain  of  one  thing  that  William 
Shakspere's  (of  Stratford)  personal  history 
cannot  be  brought  within  the  scope  of  literary 
affiliation. 

Why  press  the  pursuit  further  when  all 
their  researches  have  failed  to  unearth  the 
grains  of  literary  fact,  when  the  caviling  crit- 
ics seeks  to  mingle  authenticated  non-literary 
facts  with  the  chaff  of  fiction. 

The  two  greatest  names  of  all  the  forepast 
centuries,  called  Homer  and  Shakespeare, 
should  be  placed  side  by  side  inasmuch  as  the 
authorship  of  the  immortal  Plays  and  the  au- 
thorship of  the  great  Greek  Epics,  the  "Iliad" 
and  the  "Odyssey"  are  about  equally  in  doubt, 
and  the  great  unknown  authors  about  equally 
pre-eminent.  Shelley  in  speaking  of  them 
says,  "As  a  poet  Homer  must  be  acknowledged 
to  excel  'Shakespeare,'  in  the  truth,  the  har- 
mony, the  sustained  grandeur  and  the  satisfy- 
ing completeness  of  his  images." 

There  is  a  school  of  critics  who  have  a  very 
convenient  practice  of  writing  biography  to 
suit  their  whimsical  impressions,  and  who  read 
into  Shakespeare  manufactured  tradition 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  89 

merely  "for  filling",  or  whatever  else  is  grati- 
fying according  to  their  desire;  that  is,  it  rep- 
resents William  Shakspere  of  Stratford,  not  as 
he  was  but  as  they  thought  "Shakespeare"  the 
immortal  poet,  should  be,  a  practice  inconsis- 
tent with  rectitude.  They  are  guilty  of  falsi- 
fying the  subject  of  their  biography. 

However,  with  a  divided  personality  there 
is  nothing  to  restrain,  but  in  the  opinion  of 
very  many  critics  the  Stratford  player  and  the 
immortal  poet  are  under  the  same  hood — an 
undivided  personality. 

We  are  enjoined  by  critics  of  Stratfordian 
faith  to  read  the  story  of  Shakespeare's  life 
in  Shakespeare's  Works.  Although  the  Plays 
have  been  interpolated  by  others,  the  alloy  is 
considerable  running  through  all  Shakes- 
peare's Plays,  so  that  the  genuine  fiber  of  the 
poet's  life  cannot  be  extracted.  And  supposing 
the  Works  contained  the  story  of  the  poet's 
life  it  would  be  found  incongruous  to  the  ma- 
terial we  know  the  Stratford  player's  life  was 
made  of. 

Nevertheless,  some  critics  amuse  themselves 
in  seeking  vainly  to  deduce  the  story  of  the 
poet  ("Shakespeare")  life  from  his  Works, 
They  give  us  the  suppositions  they  themselves 


90          SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

receive  from  specific  sentences  in  the  Plays  un- 
til there  are  as  many  "Shakespeares"  as  there 
are  commentators. 

"The  life  of  Shakspere  is  a  fine  mystery  and 
I  tremble  every  day  lest  something  should 
turn  up." — Charles  Dickens. 

Since  the  great  novelist  journeyed  on  into 
the  other  life  in  1870,  the  diligent  antiquaries 
have  turned  up  something  that  should  jar  him 
were  he  now  living,  and  make  all  things  Strat- 
fordian  quaky.  That  matter  I  later  refer  to. 

Nevertheless,  the  critics  and  commentators 
read  into  "Shakespeare"  their  guesses — fan- 
tastic tricks  of  the  imagination. 

In  no  other  biography  but  "Shakespeare" 
so-called,  do  we  find  writers  indulging  so  often 
in  reveries  and  guess-work,  which  unfortun- 
ately have  seduced  the  historian  and  misled 
the  reader,  by  their  statement  of  them  as 
proven  facts.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  the 
more  recent  of  these  books  of  fictitious  bio- 
graphy called  "A  Life  of  William  Shakes- 
peare.v:  We  are  not  surprised  at  anything  in 
Shakespearian  biography  but  we  receive  a 
sudden,  violent  shock  from  the  historian  of 
"A  Short  History  of  the  English  People"  (p. 
431)  when  he  jolts  the  reader,  saying, — "Rob- 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  91 

ert  Greene  speaks  bitterly  of  him  (Shakes- 
peare), under  the  name  of  "Shakescene." 
And  that  a  fellow-playwright,  Chettle,  ans- 
wered Greene's  attack  on  him  in  words  of  hon- 
est affection."  Rather  queer  that  a  grave,  and 
in  the  main  reliable  historian,  should  have 
been  fooled  by  the  Stratfordians  into  stating 
their  worthless  conjectures  as  proven  facts. 

The  critics  and  commentators  having 
sneaked  "Shakespeare's"  name  into  the 
"Shakescene"  passage,  endeavor  vainly  to 
fool  the  reader.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact 
neither  Greene  nor  Chettle  ever  named  Shake- 
speare or  any  of  his  Plays.  Nevertheless  the 
Stratfordians  are  leading  the  reader  to  believe 
that  Greene  and  Chettle  in  authenticated  rec- 
ord make  mention  of  "Shakespeare." 

Not  perceiving  the  difference  between  proof 
and  opinion,  Sir  Sidney  Lee  audaciously  as- 
sumes the  point  he  endeavors  vainly  to  prove. 
It  signifies  little  or  nothing  how  the  Stratford 
actor  spelled  his  name,  although  as  a  matter 
of  fact  he  never  adopted  the  literary  form 
"Shakespeare",  but  always  spelled  his  name 
after  the  rustic  fashion  "Shakspere"  or  "Shaks- 
per."  "The  vulgar  pronunciation,"  according 
to  Mr.  Malone  and  Mr.  Garnett,  says  William 


92  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Shakespeare  or  (Shakspere)  of  Stratford,  was 
a  rustic.  Mr.  Garnett,  by  the  way,  is  thor- 
oughly orthodox.  And  now  if  a  Stratford 
rustic  is  to  be  advanced  as  possessing  this  pro- 
digious intellect  and  mastery  of  general  erudi- 
tion, which  in  five  short  years  is  to  begin  the 
authorship  of  Plays  which  belong  to  the  su- 
preme rank  of  literature,  there  should  be  some 
indication  of  his  activity  on  or  before  1592,  for 
he  should  by  this  time  be  cramming  his  life 
with  the  stuff  which  the  life  of  a  maker  of 
plays  is  made  of.  Therefore  in  order  to  iden- 
tify the  Stratford  actor,  William  Shakspere 
with  the  pseudonymous  author  "Shakespeare," 
whose  Plays  were  coming  out  anonymously, 
Green's  Groatworth  Shakes-scene  letter  is 
pressed  into  service  in  the  hope  that  the  Strat- 
ford actor  (young  Shakspere)  may  be  divined 
as  the  author  of  the  Poems  and  Plays.  And 
furthermore  no  account  of  William  Shakspere 
has  ever  been  printed  since  Thomas  Trywhitt's 
time  (1730-85),  of  which  the  Groatworth 
Shake-scene  allusion  of  Robert  Greene  is  not  a 
feature.  That  Shake-scene  is  meant  for 
"Shakespeare",  or  if  you  like  "Shakspere",  is 
the  contention  of  almost  all  who  hold  the 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  93 

opinion  that  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford 
was  the  author  of  the  Plays  and  Poems. 

That  position  I  later  contend  against.  The 
attribution  was  primarily  the  tentative  conjec- 
ture of  Thomas  f  werhitt  but  has  now  become 
the  banner-cry  of  the  Stratfordians.  The 
bulk  of  all  recent  biography  called  "A  Life 
of  William  Shakespeare",  consists  chiefly  of 
by-gone  guess-work  stated  conjecturally  by  old 
time  writers.  But  when  stated  as  proven  fact, 
as  is  usually  the  case  by  modern  biographers, 
is  clearly  a  willful  perversion  of  history,  and 
in  several  instances  disclose  the  biographers' 
falsification  of  ancient  documents  so  as  to  give 
them  a  meaning  unlike  to  that  which  they  bore. 
A  sample  of  arrogant  Stratfordian  audacity  is 
the  substitution  of  "he"  for  "I",  when  read  into 
the  diary  of  Thomas  Green,  clerk  of  the  Strat- 
ford Corporation. 

That  Shakespeare  was  the  object  and  reci- 
pient of  Robert  Greene's  censure  (an  aver- 
ment that  has  no  foundation  in  fact,  a  mere  as- 
sumption without  proof).  And  Chettle's  sup- 
posed allusion  to  "Shakespeare"  is  also  mere 
guess  work.  For  George  Peele  "was  excellent 
in  the  quality  he  professes"  and  surely  did  pos- 
sess "facetious  grace  in  writing."  And  there 


94  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

were  also  several  other  persons  having  actorial 
repute  who  wrote  for  the  stage. 

It  matters  little  at  whom  Greene  aimed  so 
long  as  "Shakespeare"  was  not  the  object  of 
the  aimer.  However,  the  "only  Shake-scene" 
allusion  contained  in  Greene's  letter  written  to 
three  poets  of  his  own  fellowship,  is  an  earn- 
est, heartfelt  dissuasive  from  the  practice  of 
making  Plays,  which  many  writers  who  hold 
the  Stratfordian  faith  regard  as  "A  pruning 
attack  on  Shakespeare,"  and  forthwith  attack 
Greene  by  foul  aspersions,  extremely  bitter  in 
tone,  bespattering  his  memory  with  abuse. 

This  it  seems  to  me  is  setting  a  high  value 
on  mere  guess-work.  But  then  we  should  keep 
in  mind  that  the  Stratfordians  are  in  desperate 
straits.  At  the  time  Greene  wrote  his  cele- 
brated letter  the  Plays  were  anonymous,  not 
one  of  the  Shakespeare  Plays  of  the  period  are 
of  certified  authorship.  No  poem  was  pub- 
lished under  the  name  of  "Shakespeare"  or  un- 
der any  similar  name  till  1593;  no  Play  till 
1598;  no  edition  of  the  Sonnets  till  1609. 

The  votaries  of  "Shakespeare"  posing  as  his 
biographers,  in  the  urgency  of  their  desire  to 
remove  doubts  which  had  existed  respecting 
Shakspere's  early  London  career,  prior  to  the 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  95 

year  1592,  crave  some  notation  of  literary  ac- 
tivity in  the  young  man  who  went  up  from 
Stratford  to  London  in  1587  (probably).  As 
the  immortal  Plays  were  coming  out  anony- 
mously and  surreptitiously  there  is  a  very 
strong  desire  to  appropriate  "the  only  Shake- 
scene"  (dance-scene)  reference.  For  in  the 
similarity  and  sound  of  the  compound  word 
"Shake-scene,"  consisting  of  two  monosyllabic 
words  joined  so  as  to  be  one  word, — in  one  of 
its  elements  there  is  that  which  fits  it  to  re- 
ceive a  Shakespearean  connotation,  thus  catch- 
ing the  popular  fancy  of  the  critics  and  aca- 
demic commentator.  The  use  of  the  compound 
word  "Shake-rags"  by  William  Kemp,  the 
great  comic  actor  and  jig-dancer,  which  he 
used  derisively  and  as  tauntingly  as  Greene 
had  used  "Shake-scene."  The  first  syllable  in 
the  compound  word  "Shake-scene"  and 
"Shake-rags"  is  as  a  term  of  reproach  about 
equally  derisive. 

Not  all  Stratfordians  hold  with  Sir  Sidney 
Lee  that  the  allusion  to  "Shake-scene"  in 
Greene's  Groatworth  of  wit  is  meant  for 
"Shakespeare".  Professor  Churton  Collins 
says, — "it  is  at  least  doubtful  whether  this  sup- 
posed allusion  to  Shakespeare  has  any  refer- 


96  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ence  to  him  at  all".  However,  the  coupling 
of  the  only  "Shake-scene"  allusion  in  Greene's 
"Groatsworth  of  Wit"  with  the  "facetious 
grace  in  writing"  intimation  in  Chittle  Preface 
to  the  "Kind-Hart's  Dreame"  is  still  the  idle 
fancy  of  some  critics.  Here  again  there  are 
divergencies  of  opinion  among  themselves. 
All  writers  who  hold  the  "Stratfordian  faith" 
do  not  hold  that  the  person  reported  to  have 
"facetious  grace  in  writing"  can  be  identified 
with  Shakespeare."  The  distinguished  Strat- 
fordian critics  who  maintain  that  the  identifi- 
cation is  impossible  are  Mr.  Castle,  K.  C.,  Mr. 
E.  K.  Chambers,  Mr.  Fleay,  Mr.  Howard 
Staunton,  and  Professor  George  Saintsbury 
writes, — "Chettle's  supposed  apology  is  abso- 
lutely, and  it  would  seem  studiously  anony- 
mous." 

The  gentle  Andrew  Lang  not  relying  on 
Chittle's  remarks  relating  to  Greene's  letter 
written  to  "divers  play-makers,"  proceeds 
summarily  to  throw  Chittle's  apology  so- 
called,  to  "Shakespeare,"  out  through  the  back 
door  into  the  appendix. 

However,  the  critics  who  are  of  the  Strat- 
fordian faith  manifest  a  strong  desire  to  cut 
out  certain  recorded  facts  which  the  Stratford 


FACTS  ABOUT  "SHAKESPEARE"  97 

actor  had  put  into  his  life  of  fifty-two  years. 
And  no  wonder  the  brain  of  the  plucky  Mrs. 
Stopes  reels  when  she  struggles  to  identify 
"Mr.  Shakespeare"  with  one  John  Shake- 
speare, bit-maker.  She  is  balked  at  the  do- 
ings of  Belvoir  Castle  in  1613,  which  disclose 
the  employment  of  a  supposed  great  dramatist, 
an  immortal  poet  ("Shakespeare"),  when  at 
the  utmost  height  of  his  fame  engaged  with 
Dick  Burbage,  "about  my  Lord's  impreso,"  a 
thing  (device)  of  little  value  or  consequence. 
Will  and  Dick  each  received  the  picayunish 
sum  of  forty-four  shillings,  an  unlikely  kind 
of  activity  to  say  the  least,  if  Will  was  the  au- 
thor of  the  immortal  Plays. 


A  GROUP  OF  LONDON  AUTHORS  OF  THE  XVI  CENTURY 
Sylvester,  Selden,  Beaumont  (standing) 
Camden,  Earl  of  Dorset,  Fletcher,  Sir  Francis  Bacon   (seated) 


PART  II 

AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  TRUE 
PERSONALITY  OF  THE  MAN 
WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  OF 
STRATFORD-ON-AVON,  AS 
SHOWN  BY  THE  RECORDED 
FACTS  OF  HIS  LIFE. 


AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  TRUE  PER- 
SONALITY OF  THE  MAN  WILLIAM 
SHAKSPERE  OF  STRATFORD-ON-AVON, 
As  SHOWN  BY  THE  RECORDED  FACTS 
OF  His  LIFE. 

IV. 

HPILL  about  the  middle  of  the  19th  century 
it  was  the  current  belief  that  it  is  as  cer- 
tain as  any  truth  of  physical  science,  that  the 
most  intellectual  of  the  human  race  was  born 
at  or  near  Stratford-on-Avon.  Till  then  nc 
person  is  known  to  have  said  that  the  "War- 
wickshire provincial"  could  not  have  been  the 
author  of  "Hamlet",  "Lear"  and  "Othello". 
And  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  written 
there  is  a  feeling  of  unrest  as  to  "Shakespeare" 
in  the  public  mind.  This  restlessness  is  due  in 
the  main  to  antiquarian  research  resulting  in 
an  assemblage  of  things,  such  as  the  unearth- 
ing of  non-literary  facts  in  the  Municipal 
Archives,  which  Mr.  Hallowell  Phillips  has 
given  in  part  in  his  "Outlines."  The  new, 
non-literary  discoveries  by  Charles  William 
Wallace,  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  also  the 

101 


102         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

brand  new  discoveries  in  1905,  among  the 
Belvoir  papers  about  trivial  fancy  work 
(1613), 

The  absence  of  any  reference  to  the  Shakes- 
peare Plays  by  Sir  Thomas  Bodley,  in  a  letter 
to  the  librarian  of  the  Bodleian  Library.  Note 
the  fact  the  founder  of  the  Library  is  writing 
about  plays,  play-books  and  baggage-books 
when  Shakespeare  was  at  the  meridian  splen- 
dor of  his  fame  (1600).  The  fact  that  the 
plays  of  Shakespeare  were  unnoticed  by  this 
eminent  man  of  letters  (Sir  Thomas  Bodley), 
is  due  probably,  to  their  anonymity,  and  to 
what  Professor  Masson  designates  as  the  as- 
tonishing characterization  of  Shakespeare  ex- 
pressed by  the  words  "reticence",  "non-con- 
cern" and  "non-participation". 

Whomsoever,  the  great  dramatist  was 
"whose  definition  or  use  of  a  word,  all  the  Dic- 
tionaries, all  the  Scholars  in  the  world  regard 
as  final",  could  not  have  been  a  provincial  rus- 
tic. However,  we  are  again  reminded  of  Dr. 
Ingleby  saying  that  "the  bard  of  our  admira- 
tion was  unknown  to  the  men  of  that  age".  It 
was  this  saying  that  woke  up  my  thoughts 
when  reading  again  the  Table  Talk  of  John 
Selden  (1584-1654),  antiquarian,  scholar  and 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  103 

jurist,  a  contemporary  of  the  world's  very 
greatest  poet — should  not  he  have  left  records 
>f  him  contained  in  his  Table  Talk,  which  was 
recorded  and  published  by  his  amanuensis, 
Richard  Milward,  who  lived  with  him  for 
twenty  years? 

When  the  Stratford  actor,  William  Shaks- 
pere  died  in  1616,  John  Selden  was  32  years 
of  age.  The  Folio  of  1623,  the  first  collected 
edition  of  the  "Shakspeare"  Plays,  gave  Sel- 
den a  fine  opportunity  of  studying  this  prodi- 
gious intellect  in  his  greatness,  for  when  Sel- 
den died  on  the  30th  of  November,  1654,  the 
Folio  of  1623  had  been  in  print  thirty-one 
years.  He  had  a  very  choice  library  of  books, 
as  well  in  M.  S.  as  printed,  but  not  a  single 
one  from  Shakespeare,  as  the  eight  thousand 
volume  gift  to  the  Bodleian  Library  attest.  He 
wrote  in  his  books  "Above  all  things  Liberty". 
But  this  great  man  who  was  usually  styled  the 
great  dictator  of  learning  of  the  English  na- 
tion, is  silent  about  "Shakespeare"  in  his  cele- 
brated Table  Talk.  There  are  a  great  variety 
of  subjects  discussed,  including  "Authors," 
"Books",  "Philosophy",  and  under  the  head  of 
poetry  we  read, — "Ovid  was  not  only  a  fine 
poet  but  as  a  man  may  speak,  a  great  canon 


104         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

lawyer,  as  appears  in  his  'Fasti',  where  we 
have  more  of  the  festivals  of  the  old  Romans 
than  anywhere  else ;  Tis  pity  the  rest  are  lost". 

To  the  famous  John  Selden's  legal  mind 
it  seems  that  Ovid  was  not  only  a  fine  poet  but 
a  great  lawyer.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the 
great  scholar  and  jurist  had  never  read  in  all 
probability  the  immortal  Plays,  and,  of  course 
could  not  deal  with  Shakespeare's  legal  attain- 
ments, if  any  such  there  were. 

The  Table  Talk  of  John  Selden  contains, 
according  to  Coleridge,  "more  weighty  bul- 
lion sense"  than  he  had  ever  found  in  the  same 
number  of  pages  of  any  uninspired  writer". 
Selden  not  only  bearded  tyranny  but  he  kept, 
says  Aubry,  a  plentiful  table  and  was  never 
without  learned  company,  frequently  that  of 
Jonson,  Drayton,  Chapman  and  Camden. 

Drayton's  first  edition  of  the  "Poly-olbion" 
was  enriched  by  the  notes  and  illustrations  of 
the  poet's  "learned  friend",  John  Selden.  Sel- 
den was  introduced  to  King  James  I  by  Ben 
Jonson.  Selden,  with  Camden,  attended  the 
banquet  given  by  Ben  after  his  and  Chapman's 
release  from  prison. 

William  Shakspere  or  Shaksper,  the  first 
son  and  third  child  of  John  Shakspere,  is  sup- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  105 


posed  to  have  been  born  at  a  place  on  the  chief 
highway  or  road  leading  from  London  to  Ire- 
land, where  the  road  crosses  the  river  Avon. 
This  crossing  was  called  Street-ford  or  Strat- 
ford. This  at  any  rate  was  the  place  of  his 
baptism  in  1564,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  Parish 
register,  where  the  name  is  writen  Jonnis 
Shags  per. 

The  name  was  not  made  up  of  Shake  and 
Speare,  there  is  no  E  in  the  first  syllable  and 
no  A  in  the  last,  according  to  the  way  the 
Stratford  actor  spelled  his  name,  when  he 
signs  himself  "Shakspere"  there  are  no  excep- 
tions in  his  autographs.  Arranged  in  chrono- 
logical order,  they  are,  (1)  the  abbreviated 
signature  Shak'p  to  the  deposition  in  the  Bel- 
lott-Mountjoy  suit,  11  May  1612.  (2)  Signa- 
ture to  the  purchase  deed  of  a  house  in  the 
Blackfriars,  10  March  1613.  (3)  Signature 
to  the  mortgage  deed  of  same  March,  1613, 
and  the  three  autograph  signatures  severally 
written  on  three  sheets  of  the  Will,  March 
25,  1616. 

The  next  proven  fact  is  that  of  his  marriage 
in  1582,  when  he  was  little  more  than  eigh- 
teen years  old.  Before  this  event  nothing  is 
known  in  regard  to  him. 


106         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

John  Shakspere,  the  father,  apparently,  of 
William  Shakspere,  is  first  discovered  and  de- 
scribed as  a  resident  of  Henley  Street,  Strat- 
ford, where  our  first  glimpse  is  had  of  him  in 
April,  1SS2.  In  that  year  he  was  fined  the  sum 
of  twelve  pence  for  violation  of  sanitary  regu- 
lations. The  number  of  petty  suits  for  debt  in 
which  he  was  implicated,  show  a  litigious  dis- 
position. Nothing  is  known  in  regard  to  the 
place  of  his  birth  and  nurture,  nor  in  regard 
to  his  ancestry.  John  Shakspere  seems  to  have 
been  a  chapman,  trading  in  farm  produce. 

In  1557  he  married  Mary  Arden,  the  sev- 
enth and  youngest  daughter  of  Robert  Ar- 
den, who  had  left  to  her  fifty-three  acres  and 
a  house  called  Asbies  at  Wilmcote.  She  also 
acquired  an  interest  in  two  messuages  at  Smit- 
terfield.  This  step  gave  John  Shakspere  a 
reputation  among  his  neighbors  of  having 
married  an  heiress,  and  he  was  not  slow  to  take 
•advantage  of  it.  His  official  career  com- 
menced at  once  by  his  election,  in  1557,  as  an 
ale  taster,  "to  see  to  the  quality  of  bread  and 
ale".  He  was  amerced  as  a  punishment  the 
same  year  for  not  keeping  his  gutters  clean. 

In  1568  he  was  elected  High  Bailiff  of 
Stratford.  John  Shakspere  was  the  only  mem- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  107 

:r  of  the  Shakspere  family  that  was  honored 
rith  civic  preferment  and  confidence,  serving 
ic  corporation  for  the  ninth  time  in  several 
functions.  However,  the  time  of  his  declina- 
tion was  at  hand,  for  in  the  autumn  of  1577, 
'the  wife's  property  at  Asbies  was  mortgaged 
for  forty  pounds.  The  money  subsequently 
tendered  in  repayment  of  the  loan  was  refused 
until  other  sums  due  to  the  same  creditor  were 
repaid. 

John  Shakspere  was  deprived  of  his  alder- 
manship,  September  6th,  1586,  because  he  did 
not  come  to  the  hall  when  notified.  On  March 
29th,  1577,  he  produced  a  writ  of  habeas  cor- 
pus which  shows  he  had  been  in  prison  for 
debt.  Notwithstanding  his  inability  to  write, 
he  had  more  or  less  capacity  for  official  busi- 
ness, but  so  managed  his  private  affairs  as  to 
wreck  his  own  and  his  wife's  fortune.  At  the 
time  of  the  habeas  corpus  matter,  William 
Shakspere  was  thirteen  years  old.  "In  all 
probability",  says  his  biographer,  "the  lad  was 
removed  from  school,  his  father  requiring  his 
assistance".  There  was  a  grammar  school  in 
Stratford  which  was  reconstructed  on  a  pre- 
Reformation  foundation  by  Edward  VI.  No 
Stratford  record  nor  Stratford  tradition  says 


108         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 


that  Shakspere  attended  the  Stratford  gram- 
mar school.  But  had  the  waning  fortune  of 
his  father  made  it  possible,  he  might  have  been 
a  student  there  from  his  seventh  year — the 
probable  age  of  admission — until  his  improvi- 
dent marriage  when  little  more  than  eigh- 
teen years  old.  However,  a  provincial  gram- 
mar school  is  a  convenient  place  for  the  lad 
about  whose  activities  we  know  nothing,  and 
whose  education  is  made  to  impinge  on  con- 
jecture and  fanciful  might-have-been. 

We  are  told  that  William  Shakspere  must 
have  been  sent  to  the  grammar  school  at  Strat- 
ford, as  his  parents  and  all  the  relatives  were 
unlearned  persons,  and  there  was  no  other  pub- 
lic education  available ;  nevertheless  it  was  the 
practice  of  that  age  to  teach  the  boy  no  more 
than  his  father  knew. 

One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  scholastic 
awakening  in  the  Shakspere  family  was  of 
short  duration,  for  it  began  and  ended  with 
William  Shokspere,  whose  youngest  daughter 
Judith,  was  as  illiterate  as  were  her  grand- 
parents. She  could  not  even  write  her  name, 
although  her  father,  the  now  putative  author, 
at  the  time  of  her  school  age,  had  become 
wealthy.  When  Judith  Shakspere  was  invited 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE 


109 


in  December,  161 1,  to  be  a  subscribing  witness 
to  two  instruments,  in  both  instances  her  at- 
testation was  executed  with  marks.  Judith 
had  then  attained  the  age  of  twenty-six  years, 
and  his  eldest  daughter,  "the  little  premature 
Susanna"  as  De  Quincy  calls  her,  could  barely 
scrawl  her  name,  being  unable  to  identify  her 
husband's  (Dr.  John  Hall's)  handwriting, 
which  no  one  but  an  illiterate  could  mistake. 
Her  contention  with  the  army  surgeon,  Dr. 
James  Cook,  respecting  her  husband's  manu- 
'scripts,  is  proof  that  William  Shakspere  was 
true  to  his  antecedents  by  conferring  illiteracy 
upon  his  daughters. 

William  Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon 
was  not  exceptionally  liberal  and  broad- 
minded  in  the  matter  of  education  in  contrast 
with  many  of  his  contemporaries,  notably 
Richard  Mulcaster  (1531-1611)  who  says  that 
"the  girl  should  be  as  well  educated  as  her 
brother". 

While  the  real  author  of  the  immortal  plays 
had  written, — "There  is  no  darkness  but  ignor- 
ance". "This  house  is  as  dark  as  ignorance, 
though  ignorance  were  as  dark  as  hell" 
(Twelfth  Night)  "seeing  ignorance  is  the 
curse  of  God"  (2  Henry  VI)  "O,  thou  monster 


110         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ignorance,  how  deformed  dost  thou  look". 
(Love's  Labor  Lost). 

William  Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon 
we  know,  was  born  to  ignorant  parents,  nur- 
tured in  a  bookless  home  which  his  unlettered 
father  gave  him  from  necessity,  and  not  from 
choice.  But  why  should  the  home  of  this 
wealthy  son  be  as  illiterate  and  as  bookless  as 
that  which  he  had  provided  for  his  own  chil- 
dren? "Dull  unfeeling  barren  ignorance" 
(Richard  II). 

Wealth  had  brought  no  change  in  the  en- 
vironment of  the  Shaksperes  of  Stratford  in 
the  matter  of  education.  However,  it  was  not 
the  least  of  John  Shakspere's  misfortunes  that 
in  November,  1582,  his  oldest  son,  William, 
added  to  his  embarrassment  by  premature  and 
forced  marriage.  It  is  the  practice  of  Shaks- 
pere's biographers  to  pass  hurriedly  over  this 
event  in  the  young  man's  life,  for  there  is  noth- 
ing commendable  in  his  marital  relations. 
There  is  expressed  in  it,  irregularity  of  con- 
duct and  probable  desertion  on  his  part.  Pres- 
sure was  brought  to  bear  on  the  young  man 
by  his  wife's  relations,  and  he  was  forced  to 
marry  the  woman  whom  he  had  wronged. 
Who  can  believe  that  this  marriage  was  a 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  111 

happy  one,  when  the  only  written  words  con- 
tained in  his  will  are  not  words  expressive  of 
connubial  endearment  such  as  "Dear  wife"  or 
"Sweet  wife1'  but  "My  wife".  He  had  for- 
gotten her,  but,  by  an  interlineation,  in  the 
final  draft  of  his  Will,  she  received  his  second 
best  bed  with  its  furniture.  This  was  the  sole 
bequest  made  to  her. 

Mr.  Charles  Elton,  Q.  C.,  informs  us 
through  Sir  Sidney  Lee  (p.  274)  that  "Shaks- 
pere  barred  the  dower".  We  agree  with  Sir 
Sidney  Lee  "that  the  bar  was  for  practical  pur- 
poses, perpetual,  and  disposes  of  Mr.  Halli- 
well-Phillipp's  assertion  that  Shakespeare 
(Shakspere's)  wife  was  entitled  to  dower  from 
all  his  real  estate". 

We  are  by  no  means  sure  of  the  identity  of 
lis  wife  in  the  absence  of  any  entry  of  the  mar- 
riage. We  do  not  know  that  she  and  Shaks- 
)ere  ever  went  through  the. actual  ceremony, 
inless  her  identity  is  traceable  through  Anne 
•Vhately,  as  a  regular  license  was  issued  for 
he  marriage  of  William  Shakspere  and  Anne 
Vhately  of  Temple  Grafton,  November  27th, 
582,  the  day  preceding  that  of  William 
lhagspere  and  Anna  Hathaway,  according  to 
he  marriage  bond  of  November  28th,  1582. 


112         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Richard  Hathaway  of  Shottery,  the  reputed 
father  of  Shakspere's  wife,  Anne,  in  his  will 
dated  September  1st,  1581,  bequeathed  his 
property  to  seven  children,  his  daughters  be- 
ing Catherine,  Margaret  and  Agnes.  No 
Anna  was  mentioned.  The  first  published 
notice  of  the  name  of  William  Shakspere's 
(supposed)  wife  appears  in  Rowe's  Life  of 
Shakspere  (1709)  wherein  it  is  stated  that  she 
"was  the  daughter  of  one  Hathaway,  said  to 
have  been  a  substantial  yeoman  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Stratford." 

This  was  all  that  Thomas  Betterton,  the  ac- 
tor, "Rowe's  informant,  could  learn  at  the  time 
of  his  visit  to  Stratford-on-Avon.  The  exact 
time  of  this  visit  is  unknown,  but  it  was  prob- 
ably about  the  year  1690.  This  lack  of  knowl- 
edge in  regard  to  the  Hathaways  shows  that 
the  locality  of  Anne  Hathaway's  residence  or 
that  of  her  parents  was  not  known  at  Strat- 
ford. The  house  at  Shottery,  now  known  as 
Anne  Hathaway's  cottage,  may  have  been  the 
home  of  Anne  Hathaway  (supposed)  wrife  of 
William  Shakspere,  before  her  marriage,  but 
of  this  there  is  no  proof.  Shakspere  was  mar- 
ried under  the  name  "Willm  Shagsper"  but 
the  place  of  marriage  is  unknown  as  his  place 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  113 

of  residence  is  not  mentioned  in  the  bond.  Al- 
though Shottery  is  in  the  parish  of  Stratford, 
no  record  of  Shakspere's  marriage  to  Anne  or 
Agnes,  the  supposed  daughter  of  Richard 
Hathaway  has  been  found  in  the  parish  regis- 
ter. However,  "in  the  registry  of  the  bishop 
of  the  diocese  (Worcester)  in  the  Edgar 

Cower  is  contained  a  deed  wherein  Sandells 
id  Richardson,  husbandmen  of  Shottery, 
make  themselves  responsible  in  the  sum  of 
forty  pounds  on  November  28th,  1582,  to  free 
the  bishop  of  all  liability  should  any  lawful 
impediment  by  reason  of  any  pre-contract 
or  consanguinity  be  disclosed  subsequently. 
"Provided  that  Anne  obtained  the  consent  of 
her  friends  the  marriage  might  proceed  with 
nee  asking  of  the  bannes  of  matrimony  be- 
ween  them". 

The  wording  of  the  bond  shows  that 
despite  the  fact  that  the  bridegroom  was  a 
ninor  by  nearly  three  years",  the  consent  of 
lis  parents  was  neither  called  for  nor  obtained 
'though  necessary  for  strictly  legalized  pro- 
:edure".  The  bondsmen,  Sandells  and  Rich- 
irdson,  representing  the  lady's  family,  ignored 
he  bridegroom's  family  completely.  In  hav- 
ng  received  the  deed  they  forced  Shakspere 


114         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

to  marry  their  friend's  daughter  in  order  to 
save  her  reputation,  "having  apparently  done 
his  best  to  desert  her  before  his  marriage." 
Soon  afterwards — within  six  months, — a 
daughter  was  born.  Moreover,  the  whole 
circumstances  of  the  case  render  it  highly 
probable  that  Shakspere  had  no  present 
thought  of  marriage,  for  the  waning  fortune 
of  his  father  made  him  acquainted  with  the 
"cares  of  bread".  He  was  a  penniless  youth, 
not  yet  of  age,  having  neither  craftsmanship 
nor  means  of  livlihood,  and  was  forced  by  her 
friends  into  marrying  her,  a  woman  eight 
years  older  than  himself.  But  bye  and  bye,  he 
will  have  his  revenge  upon  his  wife's  relations 
by  not  remembering  any  of  them  in  his  last 
will  and  testament.  Even  the  mother  of  his 
children  is  forgotten  "for  Shakspere  barred 
the  dower". 

In  1585  she  presented  him  with  twins,  when 
he  left  Stratford  for  London.  We  do  not  know 
positively,  but  the  advent  of  the  twins  is  the 
approximate  date. of  the  young  man's  flight. 
He  lived  apart  from  his  wife  many  years,  ap- 
parently from  the  time  he  left  Stratford  (date 
not  positively  known)  until  probably  1596,  the 
death  year  of  his  son,  Hamnet.  The  breath 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE 


115 


of  slander  never  touched  the  good  name  of 
Anne  (or  Agnes)  the  neglected  wife  of  Wil- 
liam Shakspere.  "There  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  player  wife  fared  in  his  absence 
no  better  than  his  father  and  mother",  who, 
dying  intestate  in  1601  and  1608  respectively, 
were  buried  somewhere  by  the  Stratford 
church,  but  there  is  no  trace  of  any  sepulchral 
monument  or  memorial.  If  anything  of  the 
kind  had  been  set  up  by  their  wealthy  son, 
William  Shakspere,  it  would  certainly  have 
been  found  by  some  one.  "The  only  contem- 
porary mention,  writes  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  made 
of  the  wife  of  Shakspere  between  her  marriage 
in  1582  and  her  husband's  death  in  1616,  was 
as  the  borrower,  at  an  unascertained  date  of 
forty  shillings  from  Thomas  Whittington,  who 
had  formerly  been  her  father's  shepherd.  The 
money  was  unpaid  when  Whittington  died  in 
1601,  and  his  executor  was  directed  to  recover 
the  sum  from  Shakspere  and  distribute  it 
among  the  poor  of  Stratford".  As  though  in 
mockery  of  what  might  have  been  looked  for 
in  the  wealthy  husband. 

There  is  disclosed  in  this  pecuniary  transac- 
tion, coupled  with  the  slight  mention  of  her 
in  the  will,  and  the  barring  of  the  dower, 


116         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

prima  facie  evidence  of  William  Shakspere's 
indifference  to  and  neglect  of,  if  not  dislike 
for  his  wife.  How  often  in  the  long  years  of 
her  loneliness,  there  came  to  her  in  memory, 
the  ill-boding  words  from  the  lips  of  "Suf- 
olk"— (1  Henry  VI). 

"For  what  is   wedlock   forced   but 

a  hell, 
An   age   of   discord   and   continual 

strife. 
Whereas  that  the  contrary  bringeth 

bliss 
And  is  a  pattern  of  celestial  peace." 

All  this  is  in  striking  contrast  with  the  con- 
duct of  Sir  Thomas  Lucy,  whom  the  uphold- 
ers of  the  "Stratfordian  faith"  have  attempted 
to  disparage,  and  whose  endearment  for  his 
wife  is  so  feelingly  expressed  in  the  inscrip- 
tion on  her  tomb: 

"All  the  time  of  her  lyfe  a  true 
and  faithful  servant  of  her  good  God, 
never  detected  of  any  crime  or  vice, 
in  religion  most  sound,  in  love  to  her 
husband  most  faithfull  and  true.  In 
friendship  most  constant  To  what  in 
trust  was  committed  to  her  most 
secret  in  wisdom  excelling  in  gov- 
erning her  house  and  bringing  up 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  117 

youth  in  the  fcare  of  God  that  did 
converse  with  her  most  rare  and 
singular,  a  great  maintainer  of  hos- 
pitality, greatly  esteemed  of  her  bet- 
ters, misliked  of  none  unless  the  envi- 
ous. When  all  is  spoken  that  can  be 
said  a  woman  so  furnished  and  gar- 
nished with  Virtue  as  not  to  be  bet- 
tered and  hardly  to  be  equalled  of 
any,  as  she  lived  most  virtuously,  so 
she  dyed  most  godly.  Set  down  by 
him  that  best  did  know  what  hath 
been  written  to  be  true". 

THOMAS  LUCY. 

In  order  to  shield  Shakspere  from  the 
charge  of  having  deserted  his  family,  his  biog- 
raphers find  it  convenient  to  set  the  young 
man  to  deer  stealing  so  that  he  may  make  his 
flight  to  London  in  order  to  escape  from  the 
grasp  of  his  reputed  prosecutor,  Sir  Thomas 
Lucy,  leaving  wife  and  children  a  burden 
upon  his  poverty-stricken  father. 

The  probable  source  of  the  fiction  is  the 
supposed  reference  contained  in  "The  Merry 
Wives  of  Windsor".  The  malicious  libel  was 
worked  after  the  opening  scene,  a  fictitious 
narrative  of  an  event  that  never  happened, 
and  first  made  current  about  one  hundred 


118         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

years  after  the  death  of  William  Shakspere  of 
Stratford. 

The  fabricator  of  the  story  could  not  have 
been  a  native  of  Warwickshire  for  he  would 
have  known  the  arms  borne  by  the  Charlicote 
Lucys  were  three  luces,  and  could  not  have 
been  mistaken  for  the  dozen  white  luces  on 
Justice  Shallows'  ancient  coat.  It  shows  how 
Sir  Thomas  Lucy,  a  very  sagacious  and  good 
man,  may  be  calumniated  by  perverse  mytho- 
mania.  Still  the  Lucys  of  a  later  day  were 
not  anxious  to  lose  the  reputation  of  having 
spanked  Shakspere  for  poaching  on  the  an- 
cestral preserves. 

There  is  very  little  likelihood  that  the 
young  husband,  with  a  wife  and  three  babies 
to  support,  would  voluntarily  place  himself 
in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  flee  from 
Sir  Thomas  Lucy's  prosecution,  thereby  bring- 
ing disgrace  upon  himself,  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren, while  his  parents  in  straightened  circum- 
stances were  struggling  to  keep  the  wolf  from 
the  door.  Moreover,  deer  were  not  subject 
to  the  crime  of  larceny  at  the  common  law. 
There  were  statutes  which  made  it  an  offense 
to  kill  deer  in  a  park  impaled.  The  records 
show  that  Sir  Thomas  Lucy  had  no  park  im- 


[AM  SHAKSPERE 


111 


paled.  The  poaching  yarn,  having  no  histori- 
cal basis,  was  not  traditionally  preserved  by 
the  descendants  of  Sir  Thomas  Lucy.  Unfor- 
tunately, all  the  traditions  about  Shakespeare 
or  however  you  spell  the  name,  are  non-liter- 
ary and  of  a  degrading  character. 

It  was  in  company  with  Richard  Burbage 
and  William  Kempe  that  William  Shakspere 
is  first  introduced  to  our  notice  as  an  actor. 
The  treasurer's  account  shows  that  "Will 
Kemp,  Will  Shakspere,  and  Rich  Burbage" 
received  payment  for  two  comedies  played  at 
Court  on  26th  and  28th  December,  1594. 
They  were  all  share-holding  actors.  But  we 
do  not  known  that  all  or  either  of  them  ap- 
peared before  the  Queen  in  person — at  any 
rate,  a  matter  of  no  importance,  because  first, 
second  and  third-rate  actors  often  played  be- 
fore the  Queen. 

The  last  reference  made  by  the  Burbages  to 
Shakspere  is  contained  in  a  memorial  address 
to  the  Lord  Chamberlain  of  his  Majesty's 
household  by  Cuthbert  Burbage,  who  gave  an 
account  of  the  building  of  the  Globe  Theatre, 

In  this  letter  reference  is  made  to  William 
Shakspere.  "To  ourselves",  he  says,  "we 
joined  those  deserving  men,  Shakspere,  Hem- 


120         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ings,  Condall,  Philips  and  others,  partners  in 
the  profits  of  that  they  call  the  House"  and  he 
adds,  "that  when  he  and  his  brother  Richard 
took  possession  of  the  Blackfriars  Theatre  in 
1609,  they  placed  in  it  men  players  which 
were  Heming,  Candall,  Shakspere,  etc.,  as 
successors  to  the  children  of  the  Chapel". 

This  is  the  way  the  now  reputed  author  of 
the  immortal  plays  is  described  by  the  Bur- 
bages,  the  principal  owners  of  the  theatre,  to 
whom  the  manscripts  must  have  been  sub- 
mitted. They  surely  must  have  known  all 
'about  player  Shakspere  of  Stratford-on- 
Avon  for  they  were  in  daily  intercourse  with 
him,  "a  man-player,  a  deserving  man".  This 
is  all  that  has  come  down  to  us  concerning 
Shakspere's  long  association  with  the  Bur- 
bages  after  twenty-five  years  of  intimacy. 

This  reference  was  made  in  1635,  nineteen 
years  after  player  Shakspere's  death  (1616) 
and  twelve  years  after  the  publication  of  the 
first  folio  edition  of  1623.  This  then  is  Bur- 
bage's  appraisement  of  this  yoke-fellow,  Will 
Shakspere.  The  fact  is  the  Burbages  hadn't 
any  literary  history  of  their  "man-player  and 
deserving  man"  to  record,  and  were  not  per- 
sonally responsible  for  the  literary  delusion  as- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  121 

sociated  with  his  name,  although  without  an 
intention  of  mischief.  But  the  tangibility  of 
William  Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon  is 
very  much  in  evidence  along  pecuniary  lines, 
especially  as  money  lender,  land  owner,  specu- 
lator, and  litigant.  In  1597  he  bought  New 
Place  in  Stratford  for  sixty  pounds.  Also 
mentioned  in  a  letter  of  Abraham  Sturley  a 
purposing  to  buy  the  Stratford  tithes.  The 
following  entry  is  in  Chamberlain's  account 
at  Stratford,  1598:  "Paid  to  Mr.  Shaxpere 
for  one  lode  of  stone  Xd". 

In  the  same  year,  Richard  Quiney  writes 
to  William  Shakspere,  a  letter  for  a  loan  of 
thirty  or  forty  pounds.  This  letter  is  the  only 

>ne  addressed  to  Shakspere  which  is  known  to 
t.     In  1599  Shakspere  acquires  shares  in 

rlobe  Theatre.  "In  May,  1602,  Shakspere 
bought  one  hundred  and  seven  acres  of  arable 
land  at  Stratford  for  three  hundred  two 
pounds  (in  his  absence  the  conveyance  was 
given  to  his  brother  Gilbert)  in  the  same  year 
he  bought  a  house  with  barns,  orchards  and 
gardens  from  Hercules  Underbill  for  sixty 
pounds,  also  a  cottage  close  to  his  house  at 
New  Place. 

In  1605  he  bought  the  thirty-two-year  lease 


122         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

of  half  Stratford  tithes  for  four  hundred  and 
forty  pounds. 

The  same  year,  Augustine  Phillips,  a 
brother  "player"  leaves  Shakspere  a  thirty 
shilling  piece  of  gold  in  his  will.  "In  1613 
Shakspere  bought  a  house  near  Backfriars 
Theatre,  London,  for  one  hundred  and  forty 
pounds,  and  mortgaged  it  the  next  day  for 
sixty  pounds.  In  1612,  Shakspere  is  men- 
tioned in  a  law  suit,  brought  before  Lord  El- 
lismere  about  Stratford  tithes." 

There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  Shaks- 
pere ever  visited  Stratford  from  the  time  he 
left  it  (date  not  positively  known,  probably 
in  1 586)  to  the  time  he  returned  to  it,  the  exact 
date  unknown.  We  are  constrained  to  be- 
lieve, however,  that  the  father  was  in  Strat- 
ford at  the  burial  of  his  only  son,  Hamnet, 
claimed  early  by  the  covetous  grave  in  his 
twelfth  year,  August  llth,  1596,  in  whom  for 
eleven  years  lay  the  hopes  of  primogenitive 
succession.  The  father  set  up  no  stone  to  tell 
where  the  boy  lay. 

Stratford-on-Avon  then  contained  about 
fourteen  hundred  inhabitants.  "The  most 
dirty,  unseemly,  ill-paved,  wretched-looking 
town  in  all  Britain",  is  David  Garrick's  un- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  123 

sanitary  description  of  Stratford  at  the  time 
of  the  Jubilee,  1769.  In  Shakspere's  day,  cot- 
tages in  Stratford  consisted  of  rough  walls  and 
thatched  roofs.  Mr.  Halliwell-Phillips  says 
"at  this  period  and  for  many  generations  aft- 
erwards, the  sanitary  conditions  of  Stratford- 
on-Avon  were  simply  terrible.  The  streets 
were  narrow,  irregular  and  without  crossways, 
full  of  refuse  and  lively  with  pigs,  poultry 
and  ravenous  birds". 

I  "From  dirty  illiterate  Stratford",  says  Mr. 
ang,  "we  can  expect  nothing  more  and  noth- 
ing better  than  we  receive." 

But  in  Mr.  Lang's  statement,  I  find  much 
to  support  my  own  opinion  of  the  illiterate 
condition  of  Stratford  in  Shakspere's  day.  But 
I  cannot  share  in  his  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
transmission  of  inherited  traditions.  For  with 
notables  it  is  by  no  means  the  case.  The  fact 
is,  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford  did  not  at- 
tain to  much  histrionic  eminence,  and  was  al- 
ways a  stranger  to  the  avocations  of  political 
life.  All  those  who  were  coetaneous  did  not 
regard  him  as  a  person  of  any  consequence 
apart  from  his  wealth.  There  is  not  the  faint- 
est shadow  of  credited  evidence  to  warrant  the 
assumption  that  Shakspere  at  the  time  of  his 


124         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

retirement  to  Stratford-on-Avon  was  received 
by  his  fellow  townsmen  as  a  poet  or  man  of 
genius.  But  instead  in  the  very  year  of  his 
return  (inferentially)  to  his  native  place  in 
1611-1612,  the  Town  Council  had  carried  a 
resolution  that  no  play  should  be  presented 
in  the  Guild  Hall.  But  what  became  of  the 
family  traditions?  These  surely  would  have 
been  preserved  by  immemorial  custom  were 
he  a  person  of  note  or  distinction.  Family 
tradition  is  fossil  history.  The  amber  in  which 
the  noblest  achievements,  the  tenderest  senti- 
ments have  been  securely  embedded  and  pre- 
served. 

However,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  were  no 
inherited  traditions  of  a  literary  kind  to  pre- 
serve; not  a  single  particle  of  authenticated 
evidence  to  connect  the  family  of  the  Stratford 
Shakspere  with  the  author  of  the  immortal 
plays  and  poems. 

But  Mr.  Lang  is  asking  us  to  keep  in  mem- 
ory the  fact  that  society  in  Stratford  was  not 
only  not  literary,  but  was  terribly  illiterate. 

Halliwell-Phillips  says,  "There  were  cer- 
tainly not  more  than  two  or  three  dozen  books, 
if  so  many  in  the  whole  town". 

Reader,  does  it  not  jar  you  a  little  when 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  125 

made  to  understand  that  New  Place,  the 
largest  house  in  the  town,  the  home  of  the 
wealthy  William  Shakspere,  who  in  the  prime 
of  life  was  living  with  his  illiterate  wife  and 
daughter  in  a  bookless  home — and  they  with 
the  now  reputed  author  of  Hamlet,  Lear  and 
Othello. 

It  seemed  to  Prince  Bismarck  incredible 
that  a  person  "so  intimate  with  all  the  social 
courtesies  and  refinements  of  thought  who  had 
written  what  was  attributed  to  Shakespeare 
could  of  his  own  free  will,  whilst  still  in  the 
prime  of  life,  have  retired  to  such  a  place  as 
Stratford-on-Avon,  and  lived  there  for  years, 
cut  off  from  intellectual  society  and  out  of 
touch  with  the  world".  And,  we  may  add, 
without  leaving  in  Stratford  history  or  society 
a  single  trace  of  his  existence  as  a  poet  or 
writer. 

From  the  absence  of  all  reference  to  books 
in  the  will  of  1616,  it  may  be  safely  inferred 
that  the  Stratford  Shakspere  was  not  the  owner 
>f  books  or  manuscripts.     But  Warwickshire 
ras  not  altogether  bookless,  for  we  read  that 
>ir  Thomas  Lucy  in  a  will  drawn  up  in  the 
rear   1600,   speaks   of   "all   my   French   and 
talian  books".     In  the  will  of  John  Florio, 


126         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

we  find  bequeathed  his  English  books  and  all 
his  other  goods  to  his  beloved  wife,  Rose 
Florio. 

We  also  find  that  poets  who  are  not  inti- 
mately acquainted  with  the  "cares  of  bread" 
were  book  owners,  although  not  so  wealthy  as 
William  Shakspere  of  Stratford;  for  1627  is 
the  date  of  William  Drummond  of  Haw- 
thornden  1585 — 1649  munificient  gift  of  about 
five  hundred  volumes  to  the  library  of  Edin- 
burg  University, — although  particularly  rich 
in  the  English  poets,  only  one  from  Shaks- 
peare's  works,  "Love's  Labor  Lost." 

Robert  Burton,  a  contemporary,  was  the 
owner  of  a  large  library  which  he  bequeathed 
to  the  Bodleian  Library. 

Ben  Jonson  was  also  a  great  book  lover,  and 
the  possessor  of  one  of  the  largest  private  li- 
braries in  England,  although  often  depleted  by 
his  necessities,  having  sold  them  for  bread. 
But  there  are  still  many  copies  of  his  books 
extant,  which  he  presented  to  his  friends.  But 
neither  Burton  nor  Jonson  seem  to  have  been 
the  owners  of  a  single  volume  of  Shakspeare. 

This  much  we  know,  that  in  Tudor  and  Ja- 
cobin times,  John  (father),  Mary  (mother), 
Joan  (sister),  Judith  (daughter)  of  William 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  127 

Shakspere  of  illiterate  Stratford-on-Avon, 
were  all  illiterate,  and  not  a  single  fragment  of 
his  own  letters,  books  or  manuscripts  have  yet 
been  discovered.  Still,  the  upholders  of  the 
Stratford  delusion  claim  for  "him  who  sleeps 
by  Avon"  identification  with  the  author  of  the 
immortal  plays,  although  there  is  not  a  vestige 
of  the  literary  remains  of  poet  or  author,  nor 
has  anything  ever  been  discovered  amongst  the 
family  effects  of  any  of  those  who  bore  mari- 
tal relations. 

For  instance,  Shakspere's  son-in-law,  Dr. 
John  Hall  and  Thomas  Quiney,  and  there  was 
also  Thomas  Nash  and  Sir  John  Barnard,  first 
and  second  husband  of  his  grand-daughter, 
Elizabeth  Hall.  All  these  were  persons  of 
education  and  property,  and  may  be  trusted 
to  transmit  Shakspere's  letters,  manuscripts, 
books  and  family  literary  traditions.  But  they 
have  not  done  so,  presumably  because  there 
was  nothing  of  a  literary  character  to  preserve 
and  transmit.  How  inexplicable  if  he  was  the 
author  of  the  plays  and  poems. 

All  through  the  seventeenth  century,  Joan 
Hart,  the  actor's  sister  and  her  descendants  in- 
habited the  birthplace,  so-called  from  the  time 
of  his  death  (1616)  to  the  year  1646,  and  his 


128         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

younger  daughter  lived  at  Stratford-on-Avon 
until  her  death  in  1661. 

Then  there  were  Hathaways,  who  were 
memhers  (inferentially)  of  his  wife's  family, 
residing  in  Chapel  Street  from  1647  to  1696; 
also  his  godson,  William  Walker,  who  died  in 
the  same  town  in  1680.  The  whole  period 
covered  by  Shakspere's  life  and  that  of  his 
descendants  was  105  years  from  1564  to  1669, 
or  to  the  death  of  his  grand-daughter  Eliza- 
heth  Hall.  In  kinship,  she  was  cognate  to  her 
mother's  father,  William  Shakspere,  whose 
reputed  authorship  of  poems  and  plays  was 
not  traditionally  handed  down  by  those  to 
whom  he  gave  lineal  descent,  or  by  any  person 
or  persons  coetaneous  with  him  for  that  matter 
in  the  village  where  he  had  lived  the  half  of 
his  life  time. 

It  may  be  feared,  says  Mr.  Lang,  that 
Shakspere's  daughter,  Judith  (twin  with 
Hamnet)  "brought  up  in  that  very  illiterate 
town  of  Stratford  under  an  illiterate  mother, 
was  neglected  in  her  education."  Why,  may 
we  ask,  did  this  very  wealthy  husband  and 
father  compel  his  wife  and  daughter  to  re- 
side in  that  very  illiterate  town  of  Stratford, 
instead  of  bringing  them  to  London  and  ab- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  129 

seating  himself  for  so  many  years,  thereby 
shirking  all  responsibility  in  the  matter  of  the 
education  of  his  children,  leaving  the  dis- 
charge of  every  parental  and  social  duty  to  the 
lonely  wife  and  illiterate  mother  of  his  off- 
spring. 

Mr.  Halliwell-Phillips,  the  most  candid 
and  therefore  the  most  reliable  orthodox 
Stratford  relator  has  shown  that  "By  the 
spring  of  1602  at  the  latest,  he  had  acquired  a 
secure  and  definite  competence,  and  yet  eight 
years  afterwards  in  1610  he  (Shakspere)  is 
discovered  playing  in  company  with  Burbage 
and  Hammings  at  the  Blackfriars  Theatre,  al- 
though very  much  ashamed  of  the  actor's  voca- 
tion, according  to  the  upholders  of  the  Strat- 
ford-Shakspere  delusion.  Then  why  not  hike 
back  to  Stratford-on-Avon?  Why  longer  re- 
main a  "vagabond  under  the  Act"  which  be- 
spoke for  him  an  intense  money-hunger,  to  say 
the  least. 

"Shakspere's  occupation",  says  Mr.  Phil- 
lips, "debarred  him  from  the  possibility  of  his 
sustaining  even  an  approach  to  a  continu- 
ous domestic  life" — moonshine — wherein  did 
Shakspere's  occupation  differ  from  those  of 
Alleyn,  Hemming,  Condall,  Burbage  and 


130         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

other  players  like  himself,  share-holding  ac- 
tors, who  under  precisely  the  same  or  very 
similar  conditions  sustained  family  or  domes- 
tic relations  in  London. 

The  former,  Edward  Alleyn,  famous  as  an 
actor,  and  the  founder  of  Dulwich  College, 
who  lived  with  his  wife  in  London  and  called 
her  "sweet  mouse".  The  latter,  Burbage,  in 
the  same  place  with  the  wife  whom  he  made 
his  sole  executrix.  Shakspere's  abandonment 
of  his  wife  and  children  was  from  choice,  not 
from  necessity. 

And  implies  the  assumption  that  he  was  not 
an  affectionate  husband,  a  kind  and  loving 
father;  who  could  not  have  mourned  for  his 
child  whom  he  had  not  seen  since  his  in- 
fancy,— the  son  who  could  have  no  remem- 
brance of  his  father. 

Are  we  to  believe  that  the  author  of  the 
"Winter's  Tale"  and  "Midsummer  Nights 
Dream"  actually  divorced  his  own  daughters 
from  the  socialities  and  refinements  of  London 
life,  from  the  pursuit  of  knowledge  under  his 
immediate  direction,  from  access  to  that  great 
store  house  of  learning,  the  immortal  plays 
which  contain  the  treasures  of  the  rarest  in- 
telligence, the  children  of  his  own  brain— 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE 


131 


grace 


who  wrote  of  Woman — "tender  as  infancy  and 
"Eyes  that  do  mislead  the  morn". 

Hermione,  Isabella,  Juliet,  Cordelia,  Des- 
iemona,  Perdita,  Miranda,  Helena,  Imogen 
and  Constance  weeping  for  her  lost  son,  Ar- 
thur, while  grief  "stuffs  out  his  vacant  gar- 
ments with  his  form".    Glorious  sisterhood — 
e  fairest,  the  sweetest  bevy  of  women  this 
orld  of  sadness,  gladness,  joy  and  tears  has 
ver  known  in  them;  the  true,  the  beautiful 
nd  the  good  are  born. 


V. 


Shakspere  is  thought  to  have  been  penurious 
:or  his  litigious  striving  point  in  that  direc- 
tion, but  this  feature  of  his  character  was  not 
iisclosed  in  1596  and  1599  when  he  sought  to 
lave  his  family  enrolled  among  the  gentry  as 

lown  by  his  extravagance  in  bribing  the  offi- 
:ers  of  the  Herald  College  to  issue  a  grant  of 
.rms  to  his  father,  "a  transaction  which  in- 
volved", says  Dr.  Farmer,  "the  falsehood  and 
'/eriality  of  the  father,  the  son  and  two  Kings- 
it-arms,  and  did  not  escape  protest,  for  if  ever 

coat  was  cut  from  whole  cloth,  we  may  be 
jure  that  this  coat-of-arms  was  the  one". 


132         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

William  Shakspere  himself  was  not  in  a 
position  to  apply  for  a  coat-of-arms,  "a  vaga- 
bond under  the  Act"  stood  far  too  low  in  the 
social  scale  for  the  notice  of  heraldry.  Sir 
William  Dethick  Garter — King-at-arms  is 
charged  with  unlawfully  conceding  arms  to 
Shakspere  and  twenty-three  other  "base  and 
ignoble  persons".  We  know  that  the  Strat- 
ford Shaksperes  did  not  belong  to  the  armi- 
gerous  part  of  the  population,  and  that  they 
stood  somewhat  lower  in  the  social  scale  than 
the  Halls,  Nashs,  Bernards  or  Quineys  who 
bore  marital  relations  with  them. 

Sir  Sidney  Lee  in  commentation  on  two  re- 
cently discovered  manuscript  books,  written 
Circa,  1599,  he  states,  "The  censors  general 
allegation  is  that  men  of  low  birth  and  un- 
dignified employment  were  corruptly  suffered 
by  the  heralds  to  credit  themselves  with  noble 
or  highly  aristicratic  descent,  and  to  bear  in 
considerations  of  large  money  payments  coat 
armour  of  respectable  antiquity." 

(LEE,  A  Life  of  Shakespeare). 

A  long  list  of  the  surnames  of  these  pre- 
tenders are  given.  The  fourth  name  in  the 
list  is  that  of  Shakspere. 

On  June  5th,  1607,  Dr.  John  Hall  was  mar- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKJSPERE  133 

led  at  Stratford»on-Avon  to  William  Shaks- 
>ere's  eldest  daughter,  Susanna.  He  was  an 
linent  physician  of  the  French  Court  school 
id  was  opposed  to  the  indiscriminate  process 
of  bleeding.  He  was  summoned  more  than 
once  to  attend  the  Earl  and  the  Countess  of 
Northampton  at  Ludlow  Castle. 

Dr.  John  Hall  died  on  November  25th, 
1635.  With  the  death  of  his  only  daughter, 
Elizabeth,  in  the  year  1669-70-,  terminated  the 
lineal  succession. 

»On  February  10th,  1616,  Shakspere's 
ounger  daughter,  Judith,  married  Thomas 
Quiney,  a  liquor  dealer  of  Stratford,  four 
years  her  junior.  They  were  married  without 
a  license,  or  proclaiming  of  the  banns,  an  ir- 
regularity for  which  they  were  fined  and 
threatened  with  excommunication  by  the  ec- 
clesiastical court  at  Worcester.  Quiney  was 
fined  in  the  year  1631  for  "swearing  and  for 
encouraging  tipplers  in  his  shop"  (groggery). 
In  the  year  1652,  he  removed  to.  London, 
having  deserted  his  wife  after  the  death  of  all 
their  children.  Judith  survived  her  sister, 
sons  and  husband,  although  forsaken  and 
alone,  continued  to  live  to  the  ripe  age  of 
seventy- seven. 


134         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

From  the  Quiney  family  is  a  letter,  the  only 
letter  addressed  to  Shakspere,  which  is  known 
to  exist,  and  is  one  which  asks  for  a  loan  of 
thirty  pounds.  Even  his  learned  kinsman, 
the  Quineys,  like  the  illiterate  Shaksperes,  saw 
him  only  hoarding  money  instead  of  writing 
plays. 

No  wonder  such  eminent  votarist  of 
Shakespeare  as  Hallam  Dyce  and  Emerson 
are  disappointed  and  perplexed,  for  while  the 
record  concerning  the  life  of  the  player, 
money  lender,  land  owner  speculator  and  liti- 
gant are  ample,  they  disclose  nothing  of  a  lit- 
erary character,  but  the  pecuniary  litigation 
evidence,  growing  out  of  Shakspere's  devotion 
to  money  getting  in  London  and  Stratford 
does  unfold  his  true  life  and  character,  the 
records  do  not  furnish  a  single  instance  of 
friendship,  kindness  or  generousity,  but  upon 
the  delinquent  borrower  of  money,  he  rigidly 
evoked  the  law,  which  gave  a  generous  ad- 
vantage to  the  creditor  and  its  vile  prison  to 
the  debtor. 

Shakspere  with  Shylock  insistence  in  1600 
brough  action  against  John  Clayton  for  seven 
pounds  and  got  judgment  in  his  favor.  In 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAK'SPERE  135 

.ugust,  1608,  Shakspere  prosecuted  John  Ad- 
inbroke  to  recover  a  debt  of  six  pounds. 
Dr.  Charles  William  Wallace  is  querying 
the  fact,  "Did  Shakespeare  sell  malt?"  It  was 
in  1604  that  William  Sexpere  sued  Philip 
Rogers  to  recover  a  balance  of  35s.  lOd.  due 
for  malt.  But  there  seems  to  have  been  at 
least  six  other  William  Shaksperes  living  in 
Stratford  and  vicinity.  Dr.  Wallace  is  anx- 
ious to  relieve  William  Shakspere,  the  Strat- 
ford actor,  in  whose  opinion  was  the  dra- 
matist, of  the  stigma  on  his  name  from  his 
supposed  connection  with  the  brewing  busi- 
ness, a  degrading  kind  of  activity.  And  it  is 
creditable  to  Dr.  Wallace  that  he  strives  to 
disassociate  the  name  and  fame  of  the  Author 
of  the  Plays,  from  the  liquor  traffic.  Al- 
though the  most  deeply  rooted  of  all  the  vices 
of  mankind  from  primeval  ages,  still  among 
the  most  advanced  communities,  it  is  now  in 
the  course  of  extinction. 

In  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Wallace,  the  docu- 
ment in  the  Stratford  Court  of  Record  does 
not  apply  to  Shakspere,  but  to  some  un- 
known petty  brewer  or  malster  of  Stratford, 
who  was  prosecuting  Rogers  for  these  pica- 
yunish  debts  for  malt;  because  Shakspere 


136         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

could  not  have  been  in  both  places,  London 
and  Stratford,  at  once.  While  Dr.  Wallace 
sees  exigency  in  Shakspere's  affairs  in  the 
Rogers  case,  requiring  his  immediate  personal 
attention,  Halliwell-Phillips  of  the  same 
school,  sees  nothing  which  required  the  pres- 
ence of  the  litigeous  money  lender  or  malster 
in  Stratford. 

He  says,  "It  must  not  be  assumed  that  the 
great  dramatist  attended  personally  to  these 
matters,  although,  of  course,  the  proceedings 
were  carried  on  under  his  instructions." 
Where  we  would  write  Shakspere  (player), 
he  uses  "Shakespeare"  and  means  the  undi- 
vided personality  of  Author  and  Player. 

However,  we  are  .not  asked  to  believe 
Shakspere  slipping  out  of  London  into  Strat- 
ford, selling  malt,  then  travel  back  to  London 
to  join  the  King's  players,  then  shortly  after- 
wards journey  back  again  to  Stratford  in  or- 
der to  prosecute  Rogers  for  these  petty  debts 
for  malt.  For  the  Addenbroke  suit  is  actu- 
ally a  presumption  against  such  contention  for 
"The  precepts  as  appears  from  memoranda  in 
the  originals  were  issued  by  the  poet's 
(player)  cousin,  Thomas  Green,  who  was  then 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  137 

residing  under  some  unknown  conditions  at 
New  Place." 

While  Shakespeare,  the  Author  of  the 
Plays  was  according  to  supposed  date,  writing 
"Coriolanus,"  we  know  and  can  prove  that 
William  Shakspere,  the  Stratford  player  was 
a  professional  money-lender  at  Stratford  and 
London;  the  same  William  Shakspere  who 
sued  one  John  Clayton  in  March,  1600,  at 
London  to  recover  a  debt  of  7L.  But  was  he 
the  same  Shakspere  who  sued  Philip  Rogers 
to  recover  a  balance  due  for  malt? 

And  as  to  the  stigma  on  his  name  referred 
to,  is  there  anything  to  show  in  Shakspere's 
Stratford  life  or  during  his  whole  sojourn  with 
the  wigmaker  Mountjoy  in  Silver  Street,  Lon- 
don, that  he  would  have  regarded  the  busi- 
ness of  a  small  brewer  or  malster  as  a  stigma 
on  his  name?  For  we  find  his  name  associated 
with  at  least  two  whiskey  soaked  traditions 
(so-called)  and  that  one  of  the  thirty  grog- 
shops in  Stratford  was  run  by  Shakspere's  own 
son-in-law,  Thomas  Quiney,  "who  was  fined 
for  swearing,  and  for  keeping  a  disorderly 
house." 

Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson,  a  stalwart  Stratford- 
ian,  chides  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  of  his  own  fel- 


138         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

lowship,  because  he  pronounced  one  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon,  a  "hard 
creditor"  and  to  his  thinking,  "Shakspere's 
four  law  suits  to  recover  small  debts  are  very 
inadequate  proof  of  such  a  charge."  The  pres- 
ent writer  is  of  the  opinion  that  one  such  law 
suit  of  the  like  kind  that  William  Shakepere 
uran  with"  his  neighbor,  John  Addenbroke 
adequate  proof  of  such  a  charge,  for  is  it 
conceivable  that  a  rascally  debtor  even  would 
suffer  imprisonment  in  one  of  those  jacobin 
cess  pools  called  a  jail,  in  order  to  shun  the 
payment  of  a  paltry  sum.  But,  by  the  way, 
there  is  no  proof  that  Shakspere  even  found 
one  of  his  debtors  dishonest.  Now  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  the  poor  man  was  poverty 
stricken,  unable  to  make  both  ends  meet,  for 
his  hard  and  relentless  creditor  Shakspere, 
kept  up  the  pursuit  for  one  year  until  he  left 
the  town.  A  professional  money  lender  or 
usurer,  he  never  misses  an  opportunity  to  pur- 
sue an  impoverished  debtor  into  prison,  di- 
vesting him  of  the  ability  to  maintain  himself 
and  his  family.  "The  pursuit  of  an  improver- 
ished  man  for  the  sake  of  imprisoning  him  and 
depriving  him,  both  of  the  power  of  paying 
his  debts  and  supporting  his  family,  grate 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERB 

ipon  our  feelings,"  says  Richard  Grant  White, 
ind  adds  this  eminent  orthodox  Shakspearian 
;cholar,  "We  hunger  and  we  receive  these 
lusks;  we  open  our  mouths  for  food  and  we 
)reak  our  teeth  against  these  stones." 

We  may  be  sure  that  there  was  left  in  the 
mpoverished  home  of  the  debtor,  little  more 
palatable  than  husks  and  stones  when  the 
:ather  fled  to  escape  from  the  clutches  of  his 
nsistent  creditor  (Shakspere)  while  his  chil- 
Iren  are  clamorous  for  bread,  the  wolf  of 
lunger  from  every  crevice  glaring. 

Contrast  these  scenes  in  the  life  of  William 
Shakspere  with  the  restoration  of  the  widow's 
on  by  Abraham  Lincoln.  Poorly  clad 
ind  weeping,  she  said  to  him,  "Mr.  President, 
[  had  three  sons  and  a  husband  in  the  army. 
Vly  husband  has  just  been  killed  and  I  come 
o  ask  back  my  oldest  boy."  He  granted  the 
•equest.  She  took  the  order,  went  to  the  field, 
)nly  to  see  that  oldest  son  die  from  his  wounds. 
She  went  again  to  the  President  with  the  state- 
nent  of  the  facts  by  the  surgeon.  Mr.  Lincoln 
•ead  the  backing  on  the  order,  and  said,  "I 
enow  what  you  want,  you  need  not  ask  for  it. 
[  will  give  you  your  next  son,"  saying  as  he 
vrote,  "you  have  one  and  I  have  one,  that  is 


140         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

about  right."  The  poor  woman  standing  by 
him  smoothed  his  hair  with  her  hands,  saying, 
while  her  tears  fell  upon  his  head,  "God  bless 
you,  Mr.  President,  may  you  live  a  thousand 
years  and  be  the  head  of  this  great  nation." 
Ever  the  same  in  the  White  House,  as  he  had 
been  in  the  log  cabin,  Abraham  Lincoln's  cal- 
loused palms  never  slipped  from  the  poor 
man's  hand. 

In  contrast  also,  some  letters  to  Edward  Al- 
leyn,  which  have  been  preserved,  prove  that 
Thomas  Dekker,  playwright,  was  several 
times  befriended  by  that  open-handed  actor, 
the  "famous  Ned  Allen."  He  appears  to  have 
had  no  relations  with  Shakspere,  the  Strat- 
ford player. 

The  paltry  suits  brought  to  recover  debts 
do  not  tend  to  disclose  this  Shakspere's  "radi- 
ant Temperament"  or  fit  him  to  receive  the 
adjective  "gentle"  except  in  contumely  for  his 
claim  to  coat-armour.  It  is  not  known  that 
Shakspere  ever  gave  hospitality  to  the  neces- 
sities of  the  poor  of  his  native  shire,  for  whom 
it  appears  there  beat  no  pulse  of  tenderness. 
A  man  of  scanty  sensibilities  he  must  have 
been.  The  poor  working  people  of  Stratford, 
we  may  be  sure,  shed  no  tear  at  this  Shaks- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  141 

:re's  departure  from  the  world.  We  do  not 
mvy  the  man  who  can  regard  these  harsh  pe- 
:uniary  practices  in  Shakspere  as  commend- 
ible  traits  of  his  worldly  wisdom,  for  he  was 
hrewd  in  money  matters,  and  could  have  in- 
Bested  his  money  in  London  and  Stratford,  so 
is  not  to  have  brought  sorrow  and  distress 
ipon  his  poor  neighbors. 

These  matters  are  small  in  appearance,  but 
hey  suggest  a  good  deal  for  they  bear  witness 

0  sorrow  stricken  mothers,  hungry  children 
ind  fathers  in  loathsome  prisons,  powerless  to 
)rovide  food,  warmth  and  light  for  the  home. 
>hakspere's  loans  became  a  matter  of  court 
•ecord  only  when  his  debtors  failed  to  pay. 
The  diary  or  note  book  of  Philip  Henslowe, 
he  theatrical  manager  and  play  broker,  shows 
hat  Henslowe  was  himself  a  very  penurious 
md  grasping  man,  who  taking  advantage  of 
tarving  play  makers'  necessities,  became  very 
vealthy. 

William  Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon  as 

1  sharer  "in  the  profits  of  that  they  call  the 
^ouse"  became  rich  also,  but  his  note  book 
las  not  been  preserved,  so  nothing  is  known 
)f  his  business  methods  in  dealing  with  the 
>oor  play  makers,  but  the  antiquarians  by  ran- 


142         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

sacking  corporations  records  and  other  public 
archives  have  proven  that  player  Shakspere 
was  very  much  such  a  man  as  the  old  pawn- 
broker and  play  broker,  Philip  Henslowe,  of 
a  rival  house. 

The  biographers  should  record  these  facts, 
and  not  strive  to  shun  them  for  the  literary 
antiquaries  have  unearthed  and  brought  them 
forward,  and  they  tell  the  true  story  of  Shaks- 
pere's  life,  though  we  do  not  linger  lovingly 
over  them,  for  like  Hallam,  "We  as  little  feel 
the  power  of  identifying  the  young  man  who 
came  up  from  Stratford,  was  afterward  an 
indifferent  player  in  a  London  theatre,  and 
retired  to  his  native  place  in  middle  life  with 
the  author  of  Macbeth  and  Lear/'  For  the 
Stratford  records  are  as  barren  of  literary  mat- 
ter as  the  lodgings  in  Silver  Street,  London. 
Not  a  crumb  for  the  literary  biographer  in 
either  place. 

One  of  the  results  of  Dr.  Charles  W.  Wal- 
lace's research  in  the  Public  Record  Office  is 
the  new  Shakspere  signature  attached  to  his 
deposition  in  an  abbreviated  form,  and  shows 
how  the  Stratford  player  spelled  the  first 
syllable  of  his  surname, — "Willm  Shaks"  or 
"Shak'p"  is  not  Shake — Shakspere-Shaksper- 


Shaks 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAK'SPERE  143 


lhaks,  this  is  the  spelling  of  his  name  and 
there  are  no  exceptions  in  his  autograph. 
Nevertheless  the  Stratfordians  usually  reject 
the  spelling  of  the  owner  of  the  name  and 
adopt  the  spelling  printed  on  the  title  page 
of  the  plays  and  poems, — "Shakespeare"  (a 
pseudonym),  to  indicate  that  the  Stratford 
player,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Stratfornians  was 
the  author  of  the  plays. 

Furthermore,  Dr.  C.  W.  Wallace  had  the 
good  fortune  in  his  research  to  discover  the 
whereabouts  of  this  certain  individual,  who 
in  1612,  signs  himself  "Willm  Shaks"  or 
Shak'p  and  has  succeeded  in  locating  his 
lodgings  in  1604  at  the  house  of  one  Mountjoy, 
a  wigmaker,  at  the  corner  of  Muggell  and 
Silver  Streets,  London,  as  "one  Mr.  Shakes- 
peare that  lay  in  the  house,"  and  who  lodged 
there  from  1598  to  1604.  How  much  longer 
he  continued  to  sojourn  in  Silver  Street,  "the 
region  of  money  and  a  good  seat  for  an 
usurer,"  as  Ben  Jonson  describes  it,  is  uncer- 
tain; but  he  seems  to  have  known  the  wig- 
maker's  family  about  thirteen  years,  exceeding 
in  number  the  years  he  had  lived  with  his  own 
family.  (See  Dr.  Charles  William  Wallace's 
article, — "New  Shakespeare  Discoveries," 


144         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Harper's    Monthly    Magazine    for    March, 
1910). 

However,  Dr.  Wallace  has  brought  forth 
from  obsurity  one  "Mr.  Shakespeare,"  who 
in  1604,  succeeded  in  securing  a  husband  for 
the  daughter  of  a  match-making  mamma,  but 
absolutely  nothing  whatever  relating  to  liter- 
ary work. 

From  the  fact  that  he  (Shakspere)  is  dis- 
covered at  the  corner  of  Muggell  and  Silver 
Streets,  bringing  about  a  marriage  in  1604, 
the  supposed  date  of  "Othello,"  it  cannot  be 
assumed  that  he  wrote  the  play  here  or  else- 
where, as  there  is  not  a  crumb  of  evidence 
in  proof. 

Dr.  C.  W.  Wallace  has  failed  to  discover 
Shakspere,  the  Stratford  player  as  an  author. 
The  witnesses  in  their  deposition  speak  of  him 
as  "one  Mr.  Shakespeare,"  never  as  poet  or 
author.  The  witnesses  were  persons  of  various 
employments  and  varied  accomplishments, 
from  the  scholarly  Daniel  Nicholas,  son  of  a 
former  Lord  Mayor,  to  the  illiterate  Joan 
Johnson,  who  like  the  Stratford  player's  wife 
and  daughter,  could  not  write  her  name.  All 
of  them,  near  neighbors,  saw  nothing  in  one, 
"Mr.  Shakespeare,"  who  had  lodgings  in  the 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  145 

wig-maker's  house  and  shop  in  1604-1612, 
which  distinguished  him  from  the  throng. 
Prima-facie  evidence  that  he  never  had  any 
literary  celebrity  and  one  of  many  proofs  also 
of  his  fictitious  reputation.  For  when  the 
twelve  depositions  were  taken  in  the  case  of 
Bellott  vs.  Mountjoy,  and  signed  by  his  neigh- 
bors of  the  parish  of  St.  Olave  in  1612,  all  of 
the  "Shakespeare"  plays  were  then  written, 
according  to  supposed  dates. 

The  Stratford  player  had  then  protracted 
his  sojourn  in  London  to  twenty-six  years,  dur- 
ing which  time  there  came  into  his  life,  as  the 
;sult  of  a  quarrel,  an  incident  of  the  com- 
lonest  kind — trifles  which  reveal  the  true 
:haracter  of  the  Stratford  player  and  pro- 
:laim  him  as  one  affiliated  to  insignificant  men 
ind  matters. 

These  non-literary  facts  were  unearthed  by 
'rofessor  Charles  William  Wallace  in  the 
tatter  of  Shakspere's  deposition  in  the  case 
>f  Bellott  vs.  Mountjoy,  and  which  he  dis- 
:overed  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  but  that 
in  no  way  contributed  to  a  literary  biography. 
The  truth  is  that  with  all  their  industry,  the 
Antiquarians  have  in  this  regard,  not  brought 
to  light  a  single  proven  fact  to  sustain  the 


146         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

claim  that  this  William  Shakspere,  the  Strat- 
ford actor  was  the  author  of  either  poems  or 
plays. 

This  wee  bit  of  new  knowledge  gives  us  a 
glimpse  of  one  William  Shakspere  as  an  eva- 
sive witness,  having  a  conveniently  short 
memory.  The  depositions  disclose  his  inter- 
mediation in  the  matter  of  making  two  hearts 
happy,  but  not  the  faintest  glimpse  of  the  au- 
thor of  poems  or  plays.  When  the  claim  of 
authorship  is  challenged,  new  particulars  of 
the  life  of  Shakspere,  such  as  this  and  others 
which  have  been  unearthed  by  antiquarians,— 
whether  in  the  Public  Record  Office  or  Cor- 
poration Archives — are  alike  worthless  as  far 
as  establishing  the  Author- Poet,  Shakespeare's 
identity,  or  any  connection  between  Player  and 
Playwright. 

There  are  no  family  traditions,  no  books 
or  manuscripts;  there  are  no  letters  addressed 
to  him  known  to  exist,  but  the  letter  in  which 
Richard  Quiney  asked  him  for  a  loan  of 
money,  or  by  him  to  poet,  peer  or  peasant. 

The  credible  evidence  supplied  by  contem- 
poraneous and  antiquarian  research,  does  not 
identify  player  and  householder  of  Stratford 


• ,  t 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE 


147 


;Hamlet,"   "Lear"   and 


with  the  author  of 
"Othello." 

While  on  this  subject  the  reader's  indul- 
gence is  requested  a  little  longer.  Dr.  Charles 
Wallace,  in  rummaging  the  Public  Rec- 
archives,  searching  through  musty  docu- 
icnts  which  belong  to  the  Court  of  Requests, 
found  one  case  at  court  in  which  Shakspere  is 
involved.  "There  are  twenty-six  documents 
in  the  case,  nine  mention  Shakespeare  by 
name.  In  the  entire  list  his  name  occurs 
twenty-four  times.  One  is  his  own  deposition 
signed  by  his  own  hand"  (in  all  probability). 
The  body  of  the  signed  deposition  is  not  in 
the  hand  writing  of  the  deponent,  who  is 
described  by  the  clerk  as  "William  Shakes- 
peare of  Stratford  upon  Avon  in  the  Countye 
of  Warwicke  gentleman,"  who  when  required 
to  "perfect  and  subscribe  his  deposition,"  does 
not  recognize  that  form  of  the  name  but  signs 
himself  "Willm  Shak'p." 

In  these  depositions,  according  to  Dr.  C.  W. 
Wallace,  "we  have  for  the  first  time  met 
Shakespeare  (Shakspere)  in  the  flesh  and  that 
the  acquaintance  is  good."  How  so?  Would 
you  care  to  become  acquainted  with  a  man, 
who  as  intermediary,  lured  by  persuasion  a 


148         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

poor  young  man  into  marriage,  and  then  when 
summoned  to  be  his  star  witness  played  for- 
getter?  Young  Bellott  swallowed  the  bait  of 
promised  dower — "they  (wear)  made  suer  by 
Mr.  Shakespeare  and  agreed  to  marrye." 

Furthermore,  Dr.  Wallace  tells  us,  out  of 
the  new  evidence  on  Shakspere  now  before  us, 
that  the  family  with  whom  Shakspere  lived 
was  named  Mountjoy.  They  were  French, 
doubtless  refugee  Hugenots.  The  Mountjoy 
home  was  situated  at  the  corner  of  Silver  and 
Mugwell  Streets,  London,  where  Christopher 
Mountjoy  was  engaged  in  the  making  of  head- 
dresses and  wigs,  assisted  by  one  Stephen  Bel- 
lott, an  apprentice;  also  by  the  master's  daugh- 
ter and  only  child,  Mary,  who  was  a  dabster 
in  that  art. 

From  the  records  in  the  present  case  at 
court,  in  which  Shakspere  is  involved,  and 
which  Dr.  Wallace  has  unearthed  in  the  Pub- 
lic Record  Office,  we  read  that  "Madam 
Mountjoy  told  Shakespeare  that  if  he  could 
bring  the  young  man,  Stephen  Bellott,  to  make 
a  proposal  of  marriage,  a  dower  should  be 
settled  upon  them  at  marriage."  This  was 
the  snug  sum  of  fifty  pounds  in  money  of  that 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE 


149 


r,  or  approximately  four  hundred  pounds, 
icarly  $2000,  in  money  of  today." 

Shakspere  was  then  living  in  the  Mountjoy 
lome — house  and  shop  under  one  roof.    "So 
went  to  Stephen  Bellott,  then  at  the  end 
if  his  sixth  year  of  apprenticeship,  and  told 
tim  if  he  would  make  the  offer  of  marriage 
lere  was  good  hope  that  Mary  would  accept 
>nd  the  old  folks  (shall  promise  to  give)  with 
the"  daughter  a  dowry  of  fifty  pounds  on  the 
[ay  of  marriage."     Daniel  Nicholas,  a  near 
neighbor,   testifies:     "]VJr.   Shakespeare  had 
told  him  they  should  have  a  sum  of  money  for 
portion  from  the  father.    They  were  made 
iure  of  this  by  Mr.  Shakespeare  by  giving 
their  consent  and  agreeing  to  marry,  so  he 
(Bellott)  and  the  membefs  of  the  family  had 
several  conferences  concerning  the  marriage. 
Shakspere  was  present  at  some  of  these  con- 
ferences, according  to  his  own  testimony.    All 
letails  were  arranged  and  the  marriage  was 
solemnized  November  19th,  1604." 

But  disputes  in  families  are  as  common  as 
California  poppies  in  April. 

In  1612,  trouble  with  Mountjoy  and  his  son- 
in-law  took  Shakspere  as  witness  into  court, 
'here  we  are  told  by  what  acts  Shakspere  got 


150         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

into  the  case.  No  one  would  now  have 
dreamed,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  of  making 
such  a  shifty  fellow  as  William  Shakspere  wit- 
ness in  the  further  examination,  after  his 
answer  to  the  fourth  question  in  behalf  of 
Bellott's  set  of  interrogatories,  when  ex- 
amined in  court  May  7th,  1612.  For  the  de- 
positions of  the  near  neighbors  as  well  as  his 
own,  prove  how  elusive  and  unreliable  was  his 
testimony.  He  cannot  remember  any  of  the 
important  details  concerning  the  dower 
promised,  the  talk  had  with  Mountjoy, — "that 
the  defendant  (Mountjoy)  promised  to  give 
the  said  complainant  (Bellott)  a  portion  in 
money  with  Mary,  his  daughter,  but  what  cer- 
tain portion,  he  (Shakspere)  remembereth  not 
nor  when  to  be  paid." 

On  June  19th  the  court  ordered  the  further 
examination.  "The  question  of  chief  concern 
to  the  parties  involved  and  to  the  court,  was 
what  promises  of  dower  did  Shakspere,  as  in- 
termediary, make.  Witnesses  were  again  sum- 
moned, chief  of  whom  was  Shakspere,"  who 
was  summoned  (inferentially)  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  retrieving  a  lost  memory. 

But  notwithstanding,  the  plaintiff,  who  had 
Shakspere  summoned  to  answer  the  first  set 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE 


151 


if  questions,  May  7th,  refused  through  his 
Lttorney,  to  have  him  summoned  to  answer  the 

xond  set  of  questions  which  had  been  pre- 
>ared  for  him  on  June  19th.     "For  the  rec- 
irds  show  no  summons  issued  to  him  and  his 
lame  does  not  appear  in  the  court  list  of  wit- 
lesses  for  Bellott  on  that  day.    But  the  plain- 
tiff  (Bellott)   was  constrained  to  call  in  his 
>wn   behalf   other  witnesses   to   prove  what 
ihakspere  had  said  to  them  concerning  the 
lower  promised  and  the  talk  had  with  Mount- 
|oy."     "A   fearful  example  of  hearsay  evi- 
lence,"  says  Sir  George  G.  Greenwood. 
Daniel  Nicholas  is  again  summoned  as  a 

itness  to  show  that  Shakspere  harbored  no 
:orgetfulness  when  he  talked  with  him  about 
the  promised  dower,  for  he  had  also  in  like 

lanner  talked  over  the  question  of  dower  in 
the  presence  of  Joan  Johnson  and  William 

laton,  as  they  both  testify. 
In  the  third  and  fourth  interrogatory  the 

ritness  shows  unmistakably  that  Bellott  was 
the  victim  of  connubiality  through  the  inter- 

lediation  of  one  Mr.  Shakespeare.    This  view 

:ems  to  have  been  entertained  by  the  court. 

"or  "on  June  3rd,  the  court  issued  an  unusual 
•rder  referring  the  whole  matter  at  variance 


152         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

to  the  French  Church  (Hugenots)  of  London 
and  making  the  decision  there  the  final  decree 
of  the  court."    The  Church  (Hugenots)  de- 
cided in  Bellott's  favor. 

Daniel  Nicholas,  a  near  neighbor,  in  his  de- 
position, discloses  the  fact  that  Bellott  was 
suspicious  of  Shakspere,  fearful  that  he  may 
be  influenced  by  the  old  man's   (wigmaker) 
money  bags,  for  he  asked  Daniel  Nicholas, 
son    of    Ambrose    Nicholas,    former    Lor 
Mayor,  "to  go  to  Shakespeare   (Shakspere), 
with  his  wife  and  find  out  what  it  was  tha 
the  defendant   (Mountjoy)   had  promised  t 
give  his  daughter  if  she  married  with   th 
plaintiff  (Bellott)". 

Bellott  takes  this  precaution  before  he  su 
his  father-in-law  for  the  recovery  of  the  su 
promised  at  the  time  of  marriage.     Daniel 
Nicholas  avers  "that  he  did  go  to  Shaksper 
and  that  Shakspere  of  Stratford,  but  sojourne 
with  the  wigmaker,  told  him  that  the  defend- 
ant had  promised  the  plaintiff  fifty  pounds 
or  thereabouts  with  his  daughter."    But  whe 
Shakspere  was  summoned  he  had  forgotten 
or  pretended  to  forget  the  sum  which  the  de- 
fendant,   Mountjoy,    promised    to    give    hi 
daughter. 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  153 

The  first  French  Church  in  London  was  es- 
tablished in  1550.  Churches  were  subse- 
quently founded  by  successive  emigrations. 
The  Edict  of  Nantes  was  revoked  on  the  22nd 
of  October,  1685.  It  is  estimated  that  nearly 
eighty  thousand  French  Hugenots  established 
themselves  in  England  during  the  ten  years 
which  preceded  and  followed  the  Revocation, 
and  about  one-third  of  them  settled  in  Lon- 
don. They  carried  with  them  the  arts  by 
which  they  had  enriched  their  own  country. 
These  refugee  people,  having  a  strong  feeling 
of  fraternity,  were  disposed  to  cling  together. 
They  were  forbidden  to  carry  their  fortunes 
abroad,  but  they  came  to  uphold  the  suprem- 
acy of  conscience  and  there  was  ultimately  an 

ilmost  absolute  fusion,  both  of  race  and  name. 
This    disposes    of    the    Reverend    Richard 

'avis'  assertion  in  1708,  ninety- two  years  after 

•hakspere  of  Stratford's  death,  that  he  "dyed 
Papist."    It  is  clear  that  the  Stratford  player 

:ould  not  have  been  a  Catholic,  but  the  ques- 
tion still  remains  what  was  the  religious  faith 

»f  the  author  of  the  Plays? 
Dr.  Wallace  says,  "the  fact  that  Shakspere 

ind  Wilkins  are  associated  as  witnesses  in  this 

:ase  is  highly  suggestive,  and  thinks  'Shakes- 


154         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

peare'  as  a  pseudonym  would  be  difficult  t< 
explain  how  he  and  Wilkins  were  intereste< 
in  this  suit."  Dr.  Wallace  means  the  undi- 
vided personality  of  player  and  playwright 
and  always  uses  the  word  "Shakespeare." 

In    looking   the   matter   through   we    fin< 
nothing  that  is  highly  suggestive  and  difficult 
to  explain,  save  to  those  only  who  stand  fast 
in  the  Stratfordian  faith,  which  identifies  the 
Player  with  the  Playwright. 

We  fail  to  see  why  "one  Mr.  Shakespean 
tlrat  lay  in  the  house" — boarded  there — an< 
George  Wilkins,  victualer,  should  not  both  be 
come  interested  in  this  suit  in  behalf  of  youn< 
Bellott.  One  George  Wilkins,  an  inn-keeper, 
where  Bellott  and  his  wife  "came  to  dwell  ii 
one  of  his  chambers,"  and  "one  Mr.  Shakes- 
peare, as  intermediary  in  making  two  hearl 
happy."  Wilkins,  in  his  deposition,  gave  hii 
occupation  as  an  Inn-keeper.  There  is  no  dif- 
ficulty about  the  matter,  and  nothing  to  ex- 
plain, except  that  here  the  dispute  about  th< 
name  involve?  a  dispute  about  the  man.  L 
there  anything  presumptuous  in  our  conten- 
tion that  when  the  author  of  "Venus  an< 
Adonis"  signed  the  dedication  to  the  Earl  o1 
Southampton  with  the  name  "Shakespeare/  h< 


adopt 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  155 


adopted  as  a  pseudonym  the  militant  form  of 
the  name  which  the  Stratford  Player  never 
made  use  of? 

Stephen  Bellott  in  1605,  after  having  quar- 
relled with  his  father-in-law,  who  then  com- 
pelled him  to  go  in  search  of  rooms  to  let,  oc- 
cupied a  chamber  with  one  George  Wilkins. 

That  Shakspere,  in  his  deposition,  did  not 
give  his  business  is  a  matter  of  regret.  What 
a  pity! 

On  May  7th,  1612,  the  court  issued  a 
peremptory  summons  to  William  Shakspere 
and  George  Wilkins,  in  behalf  of  Bellott,  to 
answer  questions  prepared  for  them.  The 
only  question  of  importance  before  the  court 
was  what  promise  of  dower  did  Shakspere,  as 
intermediary,  make.  Shakspere  failed  to 
satisfy  the  court  in  his  answer  against  the 
fourth  question, — the  essential  cause  of  action, 
the  gist  of  the  issue.  The  testimony  of  George 
Wilkins  was  not  of  importance,  having  ref- 
erence only  to  the  value  of  a  few  household 
goods,  "and  to  the  fact  that  Bellott  and  wife, 
after  leaving  their  father  in  1605,  came  to 
dwell  in  one  of  his  chambers." 

We  have  known  nothing  about  Wilkins  per- 
sonally before,  and  know  nothing  about  him 


156         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

now,  except  that  he  was  a  victualer  and  inn- 
keeper, having  a  license  to  sell  alcoholic 
liquors. 

The  conjecture  of  Delius  that  'Shak< 
peare"  (the  author's  pen  name),  and  Wilkins, 
a  had-i  writer  for  the  stage,  wrote  two  plays 
together  is  mere  guesswork.  For  this  state- 
ment we  have  no  basis  of  proof. 

Granting  the  collaboration  of  the  play- 
wrights does  not  connect  the  Stratford  Player 
(Shakspere),  "one  Mr.  Shakespeare,"  with 
literary  works  or  with  acts  of  dramatic  com- 
position. Neither  does  it  give  so  much  as  a 
basis  for  presumption,  much  less  proof  of 
identification  of  the  Stratford  player  with  the 
playwright,  or  any  bearing  with  the  pseudony- 
mous literature  produced  under  a  fictitious 
name  "Shakespeare." 

Dr.  Wallace  holds  our  inquisitive  attention 
when  he  asserts  that  these  documents  in  the 
case  of  Bellott  vs.  Mountjoy,  confirm  him 
(Shakspere)  as  being  the  author  of  the  Plays 
that  bear  the  name  "Shakespeare."  The  truth 
is  that  all  the  documentary  evidence  unearthed 
by  Dr.  Wallace  tends  to  show  that  the  Strat- 
ford player  was  unknown  in  literary  circles. 
What  fact  or  facts  confirm  him — the  Strat- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  157 

ford  actor,  Shakspere, — as  being  the  author  of 

[e  Plays  called  "Shakespeare"? 
However,  with  the  Professor,  it  would  seem 
hen  dealing  with  Shakespeare,  no  proposi- 
tion is  too  absurd  to  be  believed,  for  he  asserts 
that  Shakespeare  "honours  his  host  by  raising 
him  in  the  play  (Henry  V)  to  the  dignity  of 
a   French   Herald  under  his  own   name  of 
Mountjoy." 

Whereas,  in  truth  and  in  fact,  the  imper- 
sonal and  official  name  of  a  French  Herald 
"Mountjoy"  is  contained  in  Holinshed,  where 

fe  author  of  Henry  V  found  it. 
The   Chronicles  were  published  in   1577, 
twenty-one  years  before  "one  Mr.  Shakespeare 
that  lay  in  the  house"   (lived  there),  with  a 
French  wig-maker,  one  Mountjoy  in  Silver 

Ptreet. 
The  embarrassed  Stratfordians  have  long 
been  seeking  for  some  explanation  of  the  chief 
source  of  William  Shakspere's  wealth,  and 
now  after  more  than  three  hundred  years,  Dr. 
Charles  W.  Wallace  discovers  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford  in  Silver  Street,  Lon- 
don, "the  region  of  money,  a  good  seat  for  an 
userer"  as  Ben  Jonson  described  it  in  "The 
Staple  of  News." 


158         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

1604,  the  year  of  Shakspere's  match-mak- 
ing intermediation,  was  also  the  year  of  the 
famous  actor,  Ned  Alleyn's  last  recorded  ap- 
pearance on  the  stage,  he  having  secured  the 
post  of  master  of  the  rayol  game  of  bears, 
bulls  and  mastiffs,  of  the  bating  house  at  Paris 
Garden  in  Southwark.  This  was  doubtless 
the  chief  source  of  Alleyn's  great  wealth,  as 
interest-mongering  in  Silver  Street,  London, 
one  of  the  centers  in  which  speculative  en- 
terprises were  conducted — was  in  all  proba- 
bility the  chief  source  of  the  Stratford  actor's 
(Shakspere's)  wealth.  (The  usurious  Shak- 
spere  practicing  usury  when  the  lending  at  in- 
terest was  accociated  with  cruelty  and  was 
branded  as  immoral). 

To  link  the  interest-monger's  name  and  pei 
sonality  with  that  of  the  author  of  the  Plays 
is  to  debase  our  conception  of  the  writer  of  that 
fadeless  and  imperishable  drama,  "The  Mer- 
chant of  Venice." 

After  reading  all  the  evidence  in  the  case 
submitted  by  Dr.  Wallace,  we  are  convinced 
that  Shakspere's  statement  before  the  Court 
of  Requests  was  evasive  and  shifty,  for  his  own 
deposition  is  a  strong  confirmation  of  the  truth 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  159 


of  our  assertion.    "He  gave  himself  so  bad  a 
character  in  it.' 

tDr.  Charles  William  Wallace,  by  never-tir- 
ig  industry  and  indomitable  energy,  assisted 
by  the  gracious  Lady,  his  wife,  has  examined 
"some  million"  of  documents  in  the  Public 
Record  Office,  London. 

»  Although  I  cannot  agree  with  Dr.  Wallace 
n  all  his  inferences  with  respect  to  Shakspere 
of  Stratford,  nevertheless  I  gladly  accord  him 
due  praise. 

The  foregoing  facts,  the  legal  and  municipal 
evidence  bound  up  in  dusty  records,  a  bogus 
coat-of-arms  and  a  rude  epitaph,  tell  the  true 
story  of  the  life  of  William  Shakspere  of  Strat- 
ford-on-Avon. 

There  is  no  record  of  any  pretended  living 
likeness  of  Shakspere  better  representing  him 
tan  the  Stratford  bust.    This  bust  is  erected 
the  north  side  of  the  wall  of  Holy  Trinity 
'hurch  at  Stratford-on-Avon.     On  the  floor 
)f  the  chancel,  in  front  of  the  monument,  are 
te  graves  of  Shakspere  and  a  portion  of  his 
lily — his  father,  mother,  youngest  daughter 
id  son  lie  in  unmarked  graves.    We  have  no 
leans  of  ascertaining  when  the  monument  and 
>ust  were  erected. 


160         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

The  first  folio  edition  of  his  reputed  works 
was  published  in  1623.     It  contained  words 
from  Leonard  Diggs  prefatory  lines:     "And 
time    dissolves    thy    Stratford    monument," 
monument  being  used  interchangeably  witl 
tomb,  but  these  words  do  not  prove  that  th< 
bust  was  set  up  before  1623. 

It  is  the  bladder-like  expression  in  the 
physiognomy  of  the  image  which  drew  the  ex 
clamation, — "that  never  wrote  this,"  from 
great  artist  standing  before  it  and  looking  u] 
at  Shakspere's  bust,  with  an  open  volume  o1 
Shakespeare's  works  in  hand.  His  image  wa< 
rudely  cut,  sensual  and  clownish  in  appear- 
ance. 

England  was  called  in  those  days  "Th< 
Toper's  Paradise,"  and  tradition  (so-called) 
informs  us  that  Shakspere  was  one  of  the  Bed- 
ford topers.  However,  we  should  not  info 
from  this  that  William  Shakspere,  a  shewc 
man  of  business,  was  a  drunken  sot,  although 
from  his  retirement  or  withdrawal  from  the- 
aterian  activity,  he  may  have  "drunk  too 
hard." 

Now  we  have  no  basis  for  proof,  only  a  pre- 
sumption that  this  is  the  reason  why  Dr.  John 
Hall,  Shakspere's  son-in-law,  made  no  men- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERB  161 

tion  of  his  father-in-law's  death  in  his  book  of 
"Cures"  in  the  restrospect  as  in  the  case  of 
his  wife. 

In  Shakspere's  time  Stratford  contained 
thirty  grog-shops.  The  diary  of  Thomas 
Greene,  (Shakspere's  cousin)  contains  nothing 
on  the  subject  of  his  kinsman's  death, — per- 
haps he  also  was  ashamed  of  the  manner  of  it. 
But  it  may  jar  the  reader  when  told  that  the 
diarist  has  nothing  to  say  about  cousin  Shaks- 
pere's  poems  and  plays.  He  did  not  seem  to 
;gard  him  as  an  author  or  person  of  much 
>nsequence. 

The  new  information  found  in  the  Public 
.ecord  Office  by  Dr.  Wallace,  suggests  an 
lendment  to  the  gossipy,  commonplace  book 
:ompiled  in  1662  by  the  Rev.  John  Ward.    He 
ills  the  story,  forty-six  years  after  date,  of 
:the  merrie  meeting"  at  the  carousing  board 
>f  Shakspere,  Drayton  and  Ben  Jonson,  and 
it  seems  "drank  too  hard  for  Shakspere  died 
»f  a  fevor  then  contracted." 

Evidently  the  Vicar  of  Stratford  did  not 
;now  enough  about  the  external  life  of  the 
idividual  man,  Shakspere,  to  amend  the  local 
jossip  for  the  sake  of  credibility  and  the  in- 
lerent  likelihood   of   the   alleged   facts.     It 


162         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

could  not  have  been  for  the  convenience  and 
accommodation  of  Michael  Drayton  and  Ben 
Jonson  who  must  take  a  three  days'  journe] 
to   Stratford,   through  mud   and  mire,   ovei 
roads  infested  with  highwaymen,  merely  ii 
order  to  sacrifice  at  the  shrine  of  Bacchus 
when  they  could  have  had  their  swill  in  Lon- 
don at  the  public  house  kept  by  George  Wil- 
kins,  of  the  parish  of  St.  Sepulchres. 

The    Wilkins    travern    would    have    beei 
chosen  doubtless  by  the  bibacious   Ben  foi 
convenience  and  time  saving,  for  he  was  han 
at  work  bringing  forth  the  great  folio  161' 
edition  of  his  works.    "We  have  known  noth 
ing  about  Wilkins  individually"  before  his 
deposition  in  the  case  of  Bellott  vs.  Mountjo] 
was  found  by  Dr.  Wallace  in  the  Public  Rec- 
ord Office.  But  his  vocation  as  inn-keeper,  hav- 
ing a  license  to  sell  alcoholic  liquors,  mak< 
it  highly  probable  that  he  was  a  votary  oi 
Bacchus.    However,  the  inventor  of  the  yan 
could  have  known  but  very  little  of  the  ex- 
ternal  life  of   Michael   Drayton,   always  as 
"sober  as  a  judge,"  decorous  and  undefiled, 
and  could  hardly  have  been  a  member  of  a 
Scottish   party.     There   is   not   a   hint   from 
Ben  Jonson,  in  conversation  with  Drummond 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  163 

Hawthornden  in  1618-19,  of  his  "having 
tad  a  merry  meeting  in  1616."    So  soon  after 
the  great  fire  of  1614  when  a  large  part  of 
Stratford  lay  in  ashes. 

At  this  time,  be  it  remembered,  Silver 
Street  and  vicinity,  the  region  Shakspere  chose 
for  residence,  swarmed  with  French  refu- 
gees,— Hugenots.  Some  of  them,  perhaps, 
met  Shakspere,  the  Stratford  player,  with  his 
money  bags,  and  found  him  holding  with  Shy- 
lock  insistence  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  "al- 
though the  taking  of  interest  was  at  that  time 
regarded  as  forbidden  to  a  Christian."  , 

There  is  not  a  tittle  of  evidence  adduced 
to  show  that  a  knowledge  of  Shakspere's  puta- 
tive authorship  of  poems  and  plays  was  cur- 
rent at  Stratford,  when  the  first  folio  edition 
of  his  reputed  works  was  published  in  1623. 
The  records  attest  that  Shakspere's  fame  re- 
putatively  as  writer,  is  posterior  to  this  event. 
How  strange  it  must  seem  to  those  who  claim 
for  Shakspere  an  established  reputation  as  poet 
and  dramatist  of  repute,  anterior  to  the  first 
folio  edition  in  1623,  that  Dr.  John  Hall  him- 
self an  author,  and  most  advantaged  of  all 
the  heirs  by  Shakspere's  death,  should  fail  to 


164         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

mention  his  father-in-law  in  his  "cure  book" 
or  "Observations." 

The  earliest  dated  cure  is  1617,  the  year  fol- 
lowing Shakspere's  death,  but  there  are  un- 
dated ones.  In  "Obs.  XIX,"  Dr.  Hall  men- 
tions without  date,  an  illness  of  his  wife,  Mrs. 
Hall,  and  we  find  him  making  a  note  long 
afterwards  in  reference  to  his  only  daughter, 
Elizabeth,  who  was  saved  by  her  father's  skill 
and  patience.  "Thus  was  she  delivered  from 
death  and  deadly  diseases,  and  was  well  for 
many  years." 

The  illness  of  Michael  Drayton  is  recorded 
without  date  in  "Obs.  XXII"  with  its  wee  bit 
of  a  literary  biography  and  he  is  referred  to 
as  "Mr.  Drayton,  an  excellent  poet."  Had 
Shakspere  received  a  like  mention  as  a  poet 
or  writer  by  one  who  knew  him  so  intimately, 
what  a  delicious  morsel  it  would  have  been  to 
all  those  who  have  followed  the  literary  anti- 
quarian through  the  dreary  barren  waste  of 
Shakespearean  research.  We  have  found 
nothing  but  husks,  and  these  eulogists  of 
Shakespeare — Hallam  and  Emerson — refuse 
to  crounch. 

For  more  than  three  centuries,  the  Stratford 
archives  have  contained  all  matters  concerning 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  165 

:spere's  life  and  character,  and  have  given 
full  knowledge  of  the  man.  Nothing  has 
Deen  lost  seemingly  but  of  his  alleged  literary 
Life,  there  is  not  a  crumb;  no  family  traditions, 
10  books,  no  manuscripts,  no  letters,  no  com- 
nendatory  poems,  plays,  masques  or  antha- 

§gy- 
The  biographers  of  William  Shakspere  of 
3tratford-on-Avon  have  none  of  the  material 
)ut  of  which  poets  and  dramatists  are  made, 
Dut  only  those  facts  which  are  congruous  with 
noney  lenders,  land  speculators,  play  brokers, 
ictors  and  public  land  sharks.  Also  a  good 
assortment  of  apocryphal  stories  and  gossipy 
farns,  which  have  become  traditional  cur- 
rency. 

Not  having  found  the  slightest  trace  of 
Shakespeare  in  1592,  as  writer  of  plays,  or  as 
idapter  or  elabtorator  of  other  men's  work, 
except  conjecturally,  his  advent  into  literature 
nust  have  been  at  a  later  date,  if  at  all.  In 
159.S  " Venus  and  Adonis"  appeared  in  print 
with  a  dedication  to  Lord  Southampton  and 
signed  "William  Shakespeare."  Bear  in  mind 
•hat  the  dedicator  of  a  book  need  not  in  those 
days  to  be  its  author. 

In  1594  appeared  another  poem  "Lucrece" 


166         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 


also  with  a  dedication  to  Lord  Southampton. 
The  poems  bore  no  name  of  an  author  on  the 
title  page.  Here  is  literary  tangibility,  but 
does  it  establish  the  identity  of  their  author, 
or  attest  the  responsibility  of  the  young  Strat- 
ford man  for  the  poems  which  were  published 
under  the  name  of  "Shakespeare?"  This  was 
the  first  mention  of  the  now  famous  name. 
Was  it  a  pseudonym  or  was  it  the  true  name 
of  the  author  of  the  poems?  Every  person  of 
fair  erudition  and  common  sense  has  a  right 
to  his  own  opinion,  but  the  present  writer  can 
see  no  strong  and  valid  evidence  of  any  per- 
sonal connection  with  the  Stratford  Shakspere 
in  the  works  called  Shakspearean,  which  were 
produced  in  the  main,  under  a  fictitious  name, 
and  should  be  characterized  as  our  greatest 
anonymous  and  pseudonymous  literature. 

Furthermore,  the  enthusiastic  reception  of 
the  poems  awakens  a  suspicion  when  we  learn 
that  their  popularity  was  due  to  a  belief  in 
their  lasciviency,  and  that  the  dedicate"  was 
the  dissolute  self-willed  Henry  Wriothesley, 
third  Earle  of  Southampton,  and  that  the 
name  of  the  dedicator  "Shakespeare"  was  one 
of  a  class  of  nick-names  which  in  1593  still  re- 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  167 

ined  in  some  measure  that  which  was  deri- 

re  in  them. 

A  student  of  Merton  College,  Oxford, 
:hanged  his  own  name  of  Hugh  Shakspere 
nto  Saunders,  because  he  considered  it  too 
expressive  and  distinctive  of  rough  manners, 
md  significant  of  degradation  and  as  such  was 
anwilling  to  aid  in  its  hereditary  trasmission, 
when  all  that  is  derisive  in  the  name  Shaks- 
pere vile  reputation  remained  fixed  and  fos- 
silized in  the  old  meaning.  Primarily  the 
lame  has  no  militant  signification. 

Sir  Sidney  Lee  admits  that  the  Earle  of 
Southampton  is  the  only  patron  of  Shakes- 
peare that  is  known  to  biographical  research 
(p.  126).  By  what  fact  or  facts,  may  we  ask, 
is  the  authenticity  of  the  Earle'  friendship  or 
patronage  attested?  Southampton  was  the 
standing  patron  of  all  the  poets,  the  stock  dedi- 
catee of  those  days.  It  was  the  fashion  of  the 
times  to  pester  him  with  dedications  by  poets, 
grave  and  gay.  They  were  after  a  piece  of 
money,  five  or  six  pounds  which  custom  con- 
strained his  Lordship  to  yield  for  having  his 
name  enshrined  in  poet's  lines. 

Almost  all  the  poets  of  that  age  were  de- 
pendents, and  there  is,  with  few  exceptions, 


168         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

the  same  display  of  Pharisaic  sycopyhan< 
greediness,  and  on  the  part  of  dedicatee,  an  in- 
ordinate desire  for  adulation.  Every  student 
of  Elizabethan  literature  and  history  should 
known  that  the  so-called  Southampton-Shakes- 
peare friendship  cannot  be  traced  biographi- 
'cally.  The  Earle  of  Southampton  was  a  volu- 
minous correspondent,  but  did  not  bear  wit- 
ness to  his  friendship  for  Shakespeare. 

A  scrutinous  inspection  of  Southampton 
papers  contained  in  the  archives  of  his  family 
descendants  and  contemporaries,  yields  noth- 
ing in  support  of  the  contention  that  South- 
ampton's friendship  or  patronage  is  known  to 
biographical  research!  and  it  is  as  attestative 
as  that  other  apocryphal  story  out  of  the  sup- 
posable  mouth  of  Sir  William  D'Avenant  and 
preserved  by  Nicholas  Rowe,  that  my  Lord 
Southampton  at  one  time  gave  him  (Shaks- 
pere)  "a  thousand  pounds  to  enable  him  to 
go  through  with  a  purchase  which  he  heard 
he  had  a  mind  to."  D'Avenant  gave  out  that 
he  was  a  son  of  Shakspere.  One  thousand 
pounds  in  1596  was  equal  to  at  least  twenty 
thousand  dollars  today.  The  magnitude  of 
the  gift  discredits  the  story,  nevertheless,  the 
startled  Rowe  is  the  first  to  make  it  current, 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  169 

3ut  does  not  give  his  readers  the  ground  for 
lis  assurance.  Be  it  what  it  may,  he  could 
lardly  satisfy  the  modern  reader  that  this  man 
(D'Avenant)  a  son,  who  insinuatingly  defiles 
:he  name  and  fair  fame  of  his  own  mother, 
s  a  credible  witness,  for  in  degrading  his 
nother,  "he  did  but  annul  the  legitimacy  of 
lis  own  birth." 

The  truth  is,  the  social  rules  of  Tudor  and 
facobin  times  did  not  permit  peer  and  peasant 
o  live  on  terms  of  mutual  good  feeling.  In 
:hose  times  they  had  a  summary  way  of  deal- 
ng  with  humble  citizens.  A  nobleman  to 
/indicat;  rank,  brought  an  action  in  the  Star 
Chamber  against  a  person  who  had  orally 
iddressed  him  as  Goodman.  Morley,  Chap- 
nan  and  Jonson  were  imprisoned  for  having 
lispleased  the  King  by  a  jest  in  a  play  "East- 
vard  Ho,"  all  on  account  of  John  Marston's 
ocularity,  who  was  associated  with  them,  and 
>f  the  arbitrary  attitude  of  the  crown. 

The  literati  of  those  days  found  in  scholas- 
ic  learning  neither  potency  nor  promise  to 
abrogate  class  distinction  by  giving  a  passport 
o  high  attainment  in  literature,  science,  poetry 
md  high  art.  Ben  Jonson  says,  "The  time  was 
vlicn  men  were  had  in  price  for  learning,  now 


170         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

letters  only  make  men  vile.  He  is  unbraid- 
ingly  called  a  poet,  as  if  it  was  a  contemptible 
nickname." 

Edmund  Spencer  endeavored  to  propitiate 
Lord  Burleigh,  minister  of  state,  by  offering 
an  apology  for  being  a  poet.  Thus  we  are 
made  acquainted  with  the  socialities  of  every- 
day life  in  that  "long  gone  time"  and  also  how 
little  some  persons  know  who  write  books  to 
uphold  the  Stratford  delusion,  more  especially 
when  they  assert  that  such  men  as  the  Earl  of 
Essex,  the  Earl  of  Southampton  and  Sir  Wal- 
ter Raleigh  were  Shakspere's  intimate  ac- 
quaintances. 

But  we  are  on  safe  ground  when  we  claim 
for  him  yoke  fellowship  with  the  actors,  for 
Shakspere's  will  attests  the  fact  that  Burbage, 
Heming  and  Condell  were  his  yoke  mates. 

"I  give  and  bequeath  to  my  fellows,  John 
Heming,  Richard  Burbage  and  Henry  Cun- 
dell,  twenty-six  shillings,  eight  pense  apiece 
to  buy  them  rings." 

Ben  Jonson  and  the  poets  were  not  remem- 
bered in  Shakspere's  will.  Why? 

But  according  to  the  upholders  of  the  Strat- 
ford Faith,  Shakspere  in  his  life  time  is  made 
to  associate  with  Drayton  and  Ben  Jonson,  by 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  171 

rhat  Mr.  Phillips  calls  "a  late  but  appar- 
itly  genuine  tradition,"  who  in  the  fullness 
>f   their   desire   to   discover   Shakspere,   the 
itratford  actor  in  affiliation  with  poets,  make 
the  subject  of  their  memoir  die  from  the  ef- 

fcts  of  a  drunken  carousal. 
Sir  Henry  Irving  in  his  address  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford,  says,  "Richard  Burbage  was 
the  first  great  actor  that  England  ever  saw, 
(and  adds)  unfortunately,  we  have  no  record 
of  the  intercourse  between  Shakspere  and  Bur- 
bage. But  there  must  have  existed  a  close 
friendship.  We  differ  with  the  learned 
Thespian,  for  fortunately  or  unfortunately,  we 
have  a  wee  little  record  of  the  intercourse  be- 
tween Shakspere  and  Burbage.  The  only  story 
recorded  during  player  Shakspere's  life  time 
and  is  contained  in  the  note  book  of  the  Eng- 
lish Barrister,  John  Maningham,  a  student  of 
the  Legal  Inn.  It  savors  strongly  of  the 
tavern,  criminating  player  Shakspere's  morals 
the  transcription  of  which  would  sully 
these  pages.  The  barrister  had  made  an  entry 
in  his  note  book.  2 — February  of  the  same  year 
1601,  giving  a  brief  abstract  of  a  play  which 
he  had  witnessed,  called  "Twelve  Night," 
ind  in  recording  the  story  six  weeks  later,  fails 


172         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

to  confirm  the  players  identification  with  the 
author  of  "Twelfth  Night." 

"Love's  Labor  Lost"  was  performed  at  the 
house  of  the  Earl  of  Southampton  for  the 
amusement  of  Anna  of  Denmark  in  1604,  but 
Burbage  alone  is  mentioned.  No  coupling  of 
the  names  of  Southampton  and  Shakspere  as 
a  testimony  of  their  friendship.  Sir  Walter 
Cope  had  spent  a  whole  morning  in  hunting 
for  "players,  jugglers  and  such  kind  of  crea- 
tures" as  Sir  Walter  styles  them  in  writing  to 
Lord  Cramborne.  Sir  Sidney  Lee  tells  us  that 
"the  state  papers  and  business  correspondence 
of  Southampton  were  enlivened  by  references 
to  his  literary  interest  and  his  sympathy  with 
the  birth  of  English  drama."  (p.  382). 

However,  the  Southampton  papers  and  let- 
ters contain  no  reference  to  Shakespeare. 
There  is  nothing  to  show  that  he  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  author  of  the  plays  or  the 
Stratford  player,  notwithstanding  he  was  pres- 
ent at  the  performance  of  "The  Comedy  of  Er- 
rors" at  Grays  Inn  in  1594,  when  the  Stratford 
player  Shakspeare  was  an  acting  member  of 
the  "company  of  base  and  common  fellows." 

Southampton  zest  for  the  drama  is  based 
on  the  statement  contained  in  the  "Sidney 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  173 

'apers"  1599.    "My  Lord  Southampton  and 
>rd  Rutland  come  not  to  the  court.    The  one 
>th  but  very  seldom  they  pass  away  the  tyme 
London  merely  in  going  to  plays  every 
day." 

»"When  a  new  library  for  his  old  college,  St. 
ohns,  was  in  course  of  construction,  South- 
ampton collected  books  to  the  value  of  three 
hundred  and  sixty  pounds  wherewith  to  fur- 
nish it."  However,  Southampton's  literary 
tastes  and  sympathy  with  the  drama  cannot  be 
drawn  from  his  gift  to  the  library,  for  it  con- 
sisted largely  of  legends  of  the  saints  and  me- 
diaeval chronicles.  Manifestly  this  is  the  way 
the  Earl  cherished  his  passion  for  literature 
during  the  closing  years  of  his  life.  Had  the 
benefaction  contained  but  one  Shakespeare 
play,  it  would  now  be  more  highly  prized  by 
the  authorities  of  the  University  on  the  river 
Cam  than  all  this  mediaeval  lore,  which  may 
still  be  seen  on  the  shelves  of  the  College  li- 
brary. And,  furthermore,  this  would  be  some 
proof  of  the  fascination  the  drama  had  for 
Southampton,  and  serve  in  some  slight  meas- 
ure to  rescue  the  reputed  Southampton  Shakes- 
peare friendship  and  patronage  from  limbo. 
When  and  where  did  Shakespeare  acknowl- 


174         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

edge  his  obligations  to  the  only  patron  of  the 
dramatist,  according  to  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  who 
is  known  to  biographical  research,  not  one  of 
the  Shakespeare  plays  was  dedicated  to 
Southampton.  The  name  Shakespeare  is  con- 
spicuously absent  from  among  the  distin- 
guished writers  of  his  day. 

Who  in  panegyrical  speech  and  song  ac- 
claimed Southampton's  release  from  prison  in 
1603?  Sir  Sidney  Lee  says,  "Every  note  in 
the  scale  of  adulation  was  sounded  in  South- 
ampton's honor  in  contemporary  prose  and 
verse."  That  is  true  for  every  hungry 
weary  Willy  (poet)  of  the  Muse  is  repre- 
sented in  "the  scale  of  adulation."  And  Sir 
Sidney  Lee  has  excerpted  many  lines  from  the 
poets  in  proof  of  Southampton's  literary  pre- 
delictions.  But  not  a  single  line  from  Shakes- 
peare. Why?  Because  there  is  nothing  cap- 
able of  being  extracted. 

Still  we  find  this  earnest  Stratfordian  en- 
gaged in  an  effort  to  unmask  Peer  and  Poet 
in  (No.  CVII)  of  the  enigmatical  "Shake- 
Speare  Sonnets."  Tom  Nash  makes  a  bid  for 
the  Earl's  patronage  in  the  hope  of  making 
money,  as  he  admitted,  in  those  days,  literary 
men  died  of  hunger.  However,  his  note  in  the 


THE  MAN,  WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE  175 

leak  of  adulation"  is  contained  in  a  coarse 
love  poem,  dedicated  to  Southampton.  "A 
lew  brain  he  vociferates,  a  new  soul  will  I  get 
ne  to  canonize  your  name  to  posterity."  In 
:he  same  absurd  fashion,  Nash  adulated  Sir 
Philip  Sidney,  "the  least  syllable  of  whose 
lame  sounded  in  the  ears  of  judgment  is  able 
:o  give  the  meanest  line  he  writes  a  dowry  of 
mmortality." 

In  an  adulatory  sonnet,  Barnabe  Barns  tells 
is  that  Southampton  "hand  is  thrice  sacred 
md  his  eyes,  those  heavenly  lamps  which  give 
he  Muses  light — that  holy  fire- 
But  Gervase  Markham  sounded  a  blasphe- 
nous  note  when  he  asserted  that  Southamp- 
on's  sweet  voice  hushed  the  music  of  the 
Spheres"  and  delighted  the  ear  of  Almighty 
id." 


The  Tragicall  Hiftorie  of 

HAMLET 

Prince  of  Denmarke.  ' 

& 

f  tiffM  tfiiiC  i 

Enter  two £cntt»tlt.   \  ^-^-,  /  r ,*  <(  5 

1 .  O  Tand :  who  is  tfeat? 

2.  OTn.1. 

1 .  _O  you-cotac  raofl  carefully  vpon  your  watch, 

The  partnersof  my  watch,  bid  them  make  hade, 
I.  1  will :  Sec  who  goes  there. 


Her.  friends  to  this  ground. 

M*r.  And  Icegemcn  to  the  Dane, 

O  farewell  honcft  fouldier,  who  hath  releeued  you? 

1 .  B  Amur  do  hath  ray  place,  giue  you  good  night. 
M&r*   Holla^  Rtmardo. 

2.  Say,  is  Heratie  there? 
Hor.   Apceccofhim. 

a.  Welcome  Hor*tiot  welcome  good  MtrctUiu* 

M*r.    What  hath  this  thing  appcar'd  agaioc  to  night. 

2.  I  hauc  fcene  nothing. 

M*r.   Horttie  faycs  tis  but  our  fantafic, 

And  wil  not  let  bcliefctakc  hold  of  him, 

Touching  this  drea Jed  fight  twice  fccnc  by  vr, 

•        There 


First  page  of  Original  Edition  of  "Hamlet" 


IX  UMBRA. 


PART  III 

SHAKE-SPEARE  SHAKESPEARE 

THE  LITERARY  ASPECT 


i 


Let  Schollers  bee  as  thriftie  as  they  may. 
They  will  be  poore  ere  their  last  dying 

daye; 

Learning  and  povertie 
Will  ever  kisse. 

—Parnassus  Trilogy  (1597-1601). 


SHAKE-SPEARE  SHAKESPEARE 

THE  LITERARY  ASPECT 

VI. 

1RST  literary  form  of  Name  A  Pseudo- 
nym, nom  de  plume.  The  vocabulary  of 
the  Author  of  the  Plays  show  what  books  he 
read  and  the  company  he  kept.  By  the  study 
of  words  he  became  a  mine  of  thoughts  and  by 
constant 'reading  accumulated  his  astonishing 
vocabulary,  the  storehouse  of  language  which 
furnishes  his  characters  with  apt  expressions 
in  which  his  thoughts  enshrine  his  genius. 
The  sublime  conceptions  which  are  displayed 
in  his  dramatic  writings  confirm  him  to  be  the 
greatest  writer  the  world  ever  saw. 

That  there  were  two  "Shakespeares" — 
"Shake-speare"  the  Author  and  Shakespeare 
the  Player,  I  would  disabuse  every  reader  of 
such  an  absurdity.  My  contention  is  that  the 
immortal  Plays  were  written  by  a  man  whose 
true  name  was  not  Shakespeare,  however,  the 
name  is  spelled  Shake-speare, —  (a  mask — 
name — nom  de  plume.} 

179 


180         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

The  name,  we  are  told,  was  spelled  soi 
twenty  or  thirty  different  ways,  but  the  Playei 
himself  uinformly  wTrote  "Shakspere,"  and  tl 
form  "Shakespeare"  or  "Shake-speare"  was 
never  recognized  by  him.  However,  I  am  not 
concerned  about  the  variants  of  the  Stratford 
Player's  name,  inasmuch  as  my  contention  is 
not  buttressed  by  the  spelling.  Neverthele< 
as  he  wrote  it  "Shakspere"  and  as  some  un- 
known other  wrote  the  Author's  (pen-name) 
as  "Shakespeare,"  must  have  been  pronounced 
differently,  as  implied  by  the  spelling,  more 
especially  when  printed  with  a  hyphen  in  thii 
form — "Shake-speare,"  an  excellent  nom  de 
plume.  Possibly  suggested  to  the  Author  of 
the  Plays  by  the  noted  inventor  of  mask-names 
and  signer  of  dedications,  Edward  Kirk,  who 
was  the  editor  and  commentator  of  Spencer's 
earliest  work,  and  who  may  have  performed  a 
like  service  for  the  Author  of  the  Plays  and 
poerns.  The  true  name  of  the  man  who  pub- 
lished under  the  pen-name  of  Shake-speare  or 
Shakespeare  was  never  revealed. 

Francis  Meres,  a  student  in  Divinity,  pre- 
tender to  superior  knowledge,  author  of  God's 
Arithmetic,  had  his  Palladis  Tamia  (Wit's 
Treasury)  registered  September  7th,  1598 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         181 

id  published  shortly  after.  Meres  says: 
.s  the  Greek  tongue  is  made  famous  and  elo- 
tent  by  Homer,  Hesiod,  Euripides,  Aeschy- 
is,  Sophocles,  Pindanus,  Phocyledes,  and  Ar- 
jtophanes,  and  the  Latin  tongue  by  Virgil, 
Quid,  Horace,  Silius,  Italicus,  Lucanus,  Lu- 
cretius, Ansonius  and  Claudianus,  so  the  Eng- 
lish tongue  is  mightily  enriched  and  gorgeous- 
ly invested  in  rare  ornaments  and  resplend- 
ent abiliments  by  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  Spenser, 
Daniel  Drayton,  Warner,  Shakespeare,  Mar- 
low  and  Chapman."  Meres  writes  of  the  mel- 
lifluous and  honey  tongued  Shakespeare — of 
his  "Venus  and  Adonis"  his  "Lucrece"  and 
his  sugared  sonnets.  Among  his  private 
friends,  the  "book  called  Shakespeare's  Son- 
nets" was  published  in  1609,  eleven  years  af- 
ter the  Meres  reference  in  1598,  and  in  the 
next  year,  two  of  them  (138  and  144)  were 
printed  in  "The  Passionate  Pilgrim."  Mr. 
Hallam  expressed  a  doubt  whether  these  were 

fe  sonnets  mentioned  by  Meres. 
However,  Meres  enumerated  twelve  plays, 
seven  of  which  had  been  published  anony- 
mously; one  only  "Love's  Labour  Lost"  has 
been  published  with  Shakespeare's  name. 
Nevertheless,  Meres,  Carew  and  Weever, 


182         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

hack  writers  all,  write  tritely  of  the  hone 
tongued,  the  honey  sweet  and  the  "sugared" 

With  Francis  Meres  everything  written  i 
mellifluent,  but  who  this  "Shakespeare"  was 
he  does  not  claim  to  know  any  more  than  his 
contemperories  knew  about  the  real  name  and 
personality  of  "Martin  Mar-Prelate",  whose 
identity  was  never  revealed,  and  is  still  a  mys- 
tery as  deep  as  ever  "Junius"  was.    In  fact,  n< 
contemporary  made  the  slightest  effort  to  il- 
lustrate "Shakespeare"  the  author-poet's  indi- 
vidual life. 

As  a  chronicler,  Meres  is  unreliable;  all 
modern  commentators  reject  his  list  of  Shake- 
sperean  plays.  Meres  asserted  that  Ben  Jon- 
son  was  one  of  our  best  authors  for  tragedy, 
vwhen  at  that  time,  1598,  Jonson  had  not  writ- 
ten a  single  tragedy,  and  but  one  corned] 
Meres  mentions  Chapman  as  one  of  the  best 
of  our  poets  for  both  tragedy  and  comedy,  al- 
though at  this  period,  Chapman  had  publish- 
ed but  one  drama. 

William  Gager  is  also  included  in  Men 
list  of  1598  of  the  chief  dramatist  of  the  da1 
among  writers  of  comedy,  when  the  fact 
with  the  exception  of  his  single  comedy  "Ri- 
vals" no  longer  extant,  they  were  Latin  trage- 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         183 


dies.  Before  we  transcribe  in  part  "Palladis 
Tamia"  by  Francis  Meres,  we  ask  the  reader's 
pardon  for  the  abuse  of  their  patience,  for 
Meres  merely  repeats  names  of  Greek,  Latin 
and  modern  play  makers. 

"As  the  tragic  poets  flourished  in  Greece, 
Aeschylus,  Euripedes,  Sophocles,  Alexander, 
Aetolus,  Achaens,  Erithriaens,  Astydama, 
Atheninsis,  Apollodorus,  Torsennis,  Nico- 
machus,  Phygius,  Therpis,  Atticans  and 
Timon,  Appolloniates;  and  then  among  the 
Latins,  Accim,  M.  Attilius,  Pomponiys,  Se- 
cundus  and  Seneca.  So  these  are  our  best  for 
tragedy;  the  Lord  Buckhurst,  Doctor  Legge 
of  Cambridge,  Doctor  Edes  of  Oxford; 
Maister  Edward  Ferris  the  author  of  the 
Mirrour  for  Magistrates;  Marlow,  Peele, 
Watson,  Kyd,  Shakespeare,  Drayton,  Chap- 
man, Decker  and  Benjamin  Johnson." 

The  best  poets  for  comedy    (Meres  pro- 
ceeds with  his  enumeration,  naming  sixteen 
Creeks  and  ten  Latins,  twenty-six  in  all). 
"So  the  best  for  comedy  amongst  us  be  Ed- 
ard  Earle  of  Oxford,  Doctor  Gager  of  Ox- 
ford, Maister  Rowley,  once  a  rare  Scholler  of 
learned  Pembrook  Hall  in  Cambridge;  Mais- 

:r  Edwards,  one  of  her  Majesties  Chappell 


184         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

eloquent  and  wittie  John  Lily,  Lodge,  Gas 
coyne,  Greene,   Shakespeare,  Thomas  Nash, 
Thomas  Heywood,  Anthony  Munday.     Our 
best  ploters  are   Chapman,   Porter,  Wilson, 
Hathway  and  Henry  Chettle." 

Francis  Meres  does  not  seem  to  have  con- 
sidered it  necessary  to  read  before  review- 
ing. Had  he  done  so  he  would  not  have 
placed  the  name  of  Lord  Buckhurst  first  in 
his  list,  giving  primacy  to  this  mediocrist  and 
the  author  of  Romeo  and  Juliet,  whoever  he 
was,  ninth  in  his  enumeration  of  dramatic 
poets  which  he  considered  best  among  the 
English  for  tragedy,  nor  would  he  have  named 
for  second  place  on  the  list,  Dr.  Legge  of 
Cambridge  instead  of  the  author  of  "The 
Tragical  History  of  Dr.  Faustus"  (Mar- 
low). 

What  has  Dr.  Edwards  of  Oxford,  whose 
name  stands  fourth  in  the  Meres  list,  written 
that  he  should  have  been  mentioned  in  the 
same  connection  with  the  author  of  "The 
White  Devil"  (Webster)  or  the  author  of 
that  English  classic,  "The  Conspiracy  and 
The  Tragedy  of  Charles  Duke  of  Byron" 
(Chapman).  Why  this  commingling  of  such 
insignificant  writers  as  Edward,  Earl,  Thomas 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         185 

rotson  and  Lord  Buckhurst  with  the  giant 
irotherhood.  The  fact  is  so  far  as  attesting 
the  responsibility  of  anybody  or  anything,  the 
Meres  averments  are  as  worthless  as  a  musty 
nut.  What  was  said  of  John  Aubury  is  also 
true  of  Francis  Meres:  "His  brain  was  like 
a  hasty  pudding,  whose  memory  and  judgment 
and  fancy  were  all  stirred  together."  Yet  this 
is  the  writer  that  many  Shakespearean  com- 
mentators confidently  appeal  to  in  part,  and 
whose  testimony  in  part  they  with  equal  un- 
animity reject.  The  fact  is  the  modern 
Shakespearean  commentators  have  torn  the 
Meres  list  into  tatters.  Andronicus  is  univer- 
sally rejected.  Mr.  Lowell  denies  the  total 
authenticity  of  Richard  III  for  Shakespeare, 
he  says,  "never  wrote  deliberate  nonsense." 

Mr.  Fleay  finds  in  the  Romeo  and  Juliet 
traces  of  George  Peele  and  Samuel  Daniel, 
and  that  there  are  grave  doubts  as  to  Shakes- 
peare's hand  in  "The  Comedy  of  Errors." 
Most  modern  commentators  doubt  if  the  "Two 
Gentlemen  of  Verona"  could  have  been  writ- 
ten by  Shakespeare.  King  John  mentioned 
by  Meres  was  doubtless  the  old  play  of  "The 
Troublesome  Reign  of  King  John,"  first 
printed  in  1591,  and  was  three  times  published 


186         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

before  the  first  printing  of  Shakespeare's 
King  John  in  the  folio  of  1623,  which  was 
worked  after  the  old  play.  There  is  no  such 
play  as  "Love's  Labour  Won." 

Not  finding  Shakespeare  in  the  anthology  of 
his  day,  the  most  natural  inference  would  be 
that  all  those  who  wrote  under  the  name 
"Shakespeare,"  wrote  "incognito  "  We  know 
that  many  writers  of  that  day  wrote  anony- 
mously for  the  stage.  Many  of  the  anony- 
mous and  pseudonymous  writings  have  been 
retrieved.  Much  remains  still  to  be  reclaimed 
from  the  siftings  of  what  are  named  "Early 
Comedy,"  "Early  History"  and  "Pre-Shakes- 
pearean  Group  of  Plays." 

Mr.  Spedding  had  the  good  fortune  to  be 
the  first  to  demonstrate  the  theory  of  a  divided 
authorship  of  "Henry  VIII,"  to  reclaim  for 
John  Fletcher  Wolsley's  Farewell  to  all  his 
greatness.  A  majority  of  the  best  critics  now 
agree  with  Miss  Jane  Lee  in  the  assignment  of 
the  second  and  third  part  of  Henry  VI  to  Mar- 
low,  Greene  and  perhaps  Peele. 

Many  writers  of  that  age  were  communis- 
tic in  the  use  of  the  "Shakespeare"  as  a 
descriptive  title,  standing  for  the  collocuted 
works  of  not  one  but  several  playmakers.  In 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         187 

the  list  before  me  there  are  twelve  plays  which 
were  not  included  in  the  folio  of  the  collected 
works  of  William  Shakespeare  in  1623.  Al- 
though resting  upon  title  page  proprietorship 
and  in  the  absence  of  certified  authorship,  The 
Yorkshire  Tragedy  and  Hamlet,  Prince  of 
Denmark  are  equally  tenable.  So  thought  the 
printers  as  we  learn  by  their  frequent  use  of 
the  pseudonymous  name  of  the  author  of  "Ve- 
nus and  Adonis,"  a  sensual  poem  which  had 
been  very  popular. 

The  plays  referred  to  which  bore  the  im- 
printed name  of  "Shakespeare"  were  these: 
Arthur  of  Eversham,  The  London  Prodigal 
Loarine,  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  Thomas  Lord 
Cromwell,  Edward  III,  The  Birth  of  Mer- 
lin, Mucedonis,  Merry  Devil  of  Edmonton, 
Yorkshire  Tragedy,  Arraignment  of  Paris, 
Puritan,  Widow  of  Watling  Street. 

The  difficulty  of  identifying  Shakespeare 
the  author  poet  with  the  young  man  who  came 
up  from  Stratford,  has  induced  Shakespearean 
scholars  to  question  the  unity  of  authorship. 
Sir  Sidney  Lee  admits  that  Shakespeare 
"drew  largely"  on  the  Hamlet,  referred  to 
by  Nash  in  1589,  which  he  has  ascribed  to 
Kyd  (p.  221). 


188         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

It  is  scarcely  possible,  says  Mr.  Marshall, 
"to  maintain  that  the  play  referred  to  as  well 
known  in  1589  could  have  been  by  Shakes- 
peare (Shakspere)  the  "Stratforder."  Surely 
not.  We  see  the  question  of  the  unity  of  au- 
thorship involves  the  question  of  his  identity, 
for  according  to  Shakespearean  scholarship, 
the  "Works"  in  part  at  least  are  a  batch  of 
anonymous  plays  worked  over  and  labeled 
"Shakespeare." 

There  is  strong  presumptive  proof  that 
printers  and  publishers  in  Elizabethan  and 
Jacobin  times  were  in  the  habit  of  selecting 
names  or  titles  that  would  best  sell  their  books, 
and  it  mattered  not  to  publishers  if  the  name 
printed  on  the  title  page  was  a  personal  name 
or  one  impersonal.  Title  pages  were  not  even 
presumptive  proof  of  authorship  in  the  time 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  and  King  James.  The 
printers  chose  to  market  their  publications  un- 
der the  most  favorable  conditions  and  some 
writers  and  printers  chose  the  incognizable 
name — "Shakespeare"  which  had  been  at- 
tached to  the  voluptuous  poem  "Venus  and 
Adonis,"  1593,  which  had  a  wide  popularity 
resting  on  its  supposed  dissoluteness. 

This  was  the  first  appearance  of  the  name 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT        189 


"Shakespeare"  in  literature,  being  the  mask- 
name  doubtless  of  the  writer  who  gave  this 
erotic  poem  to  the  world  "the  first  heir  of  my 


ivention." 


r> 
Certified  authorship  in  that  age  as  to  the 

great  body  of  the  works  produced  is  the  excep- 
tion, rather  than  the  rule,  for  many  writers 
of  that  age  wrote  anonymously  and  pseudony- 
mously.  Edmund  Spencer  until  the  begin- 
ning of  1580  wrote  and  published  under  an 
assume  name  "Immerito" 

The  authorship  of  the  Shepherd's  Calen- 
dar was  not  formally  acknowledged  or  certi- 
fied to  until  after  it  had  gone  through  several 
editions  by  "the  unknown  poet"  as  he  is  called 
by  the  old  commentator.  After  the  certifica- 
tion by  the  author  of  the  work,  after  seven 
years,  the  critics  referred  to  Spencer  as  "the 
late  unknown  poet  or  the  person  who  wrote 
"The  Shepherd's  Calendar." 

In  1586  William  Webbe  published  his  "Dis- 
course of  English  Poetrie."  In  this  the  au- 
thor of  "The  Shepherd's  Calendar"  is  spoken 
of  by  the  mask  name  "Immerito,"  given  by 
its  editor  E.  K.  (Edward  Kirk)  a  friend  and 
fellow  student  of  the  author  at  Pembroke,  who 
ras  the  editor  and  commentator  of  Spencer's 


190    SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

earliest  work,  the  pseudonymous  "Shepherd's 
Calendar."  It  was  praised  by  a  contemporary 
poet,  George  Whitstone,  himsef  a  friend  of 
Spencer,  as  the  reputed  work  by  Sir  Philip 
Sidney.  Raleigh,  Lodge,  Drayton,  Nash  and 
Sidney  paid  homage  to  Spencer. 

Spencer  wrote  nine  comedies,  but  every 
trace  has  perished.  Not  one  in  fifty  of  the 
dramas  of  this  period  according  to  Holli- 
well-Phillipps  having  descended  to  modern 
times. 

The  plays  contained  in  the  first  and  second 
folio,  (1647-1679)  of  Beaumont  and  Fletch- 
er's  comedies   and   tragedies    number   fifty- 
three;  but  only  three  were  published  in  Beai 
mont's  lifetime,  and  that  on  none  of  thei 
does    Beaumont's    name    appear    as    authoi 
Fletcher  survived  his  partner  nine  years. 

Robert  Burton  (1576-1649),  author  of  the 
Anatomy  of  Melancholy,  maintained  his  in- 
cognito for  a  time,  he  avers,  because  it  gave 
him  greater  freedom. 

John  Marston  (1575-1634)  applied  his  own 
mask-name  "Kimayder"  to  his  antagonist  and 
purposely  ridicules  himself. 

Michael  Drayton  (1563-1631)  also  had 
written  at  this  period  under  the  pseudonym 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         191 

of  Rowland.  At  about  this  time  likewise  in 
France,  Jean  Baptiste  (Popuelin),  (1622- 
73)  preferred  to  be  known  as  Moliere,  whose 
original  manuscripts  are  not  to  be  found,  but 
as  one  of  the  great  identities  of  his  age,  are 
not  essential  to  illustrate  his  individual  life, 
He  was  the  particular  personal  favorite  of 
Louis  XIV,  who  bestowed  lavishly  his  benefits 
upon  Moliere.  He  had  given  him  a  pension 
of  seven  thousand  livres  and  a  position  near 
the  King  as  groom-of-the-chamber.  The  great 
monarch  had  been  delighted  to  stand  god- 
father to  one  of  his  children,  to  whom  the 
Duchess  of  Orleans  was  godmother. 

In  consequence  of  failing  health,  his  sad- 
dened friends  on  the  17th  of  February,  1673, 
entreated  him  not  to  have  any  play.  "What 
would  you  have  me  do/'  he  replied,  "there 
are  fifty  poor  workmen  who  have  but  their 
day's  pay  to  live  upon.  What  will  they  do  if 
we  have  no  play?  I  should  reproach  myself 
with  having  neglected  to  give  them  bread  for 
one  single  day  if  I  could  really  help  it." 

How  beautifully  Moliere's  benevolent  ac- 
tions blend  with  his  sweet  words.  He  was 
ever  mindful  of  the  pressure  with  which  the 
common  ills  of  life  fall  upon  the  poor. 


192         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

In  more  recent  times,  Francois  Marie 
Aronet  (1694-1778)  won  enduring  fame  as 
Voltaire.  Montesquieu's  Esprit  des  Lois  was 
disguised  on  its  appearance  in  1748. 

The  famous  work  "Eikon  Basilike"  which 
appearing  soon  after  the  execution  of  Charles 
First  as  his  work,  was  a  potent  factor  in  that 
reaction  which  culminated  in  the  Restoration 
of  the  House  of  Stuart.  Burnet  says  it  had 
"the  greatest  run  in  many  impressions  of  any 
book  of  the  age." 

Many  years  after  its  first  appearance,  John 
Gauden,  Bishop  of  Exeter  in  1660,  laid  claim 
to  its  authorship.  Sir  Walter  Scott  main- 
tained his  incognito  as  the  great  unknown  for 
years  like  "Junius"  whose  secret  was  intrusted 
to  no  one,  and  was  never  to  be  revealed.  Sir 
Walter  preserved  his  secret  until  driven  to  the 
brink  of  financial  destruction. 

We  believe  that  the  author  of  "Hamlet," 
"Lear"  and  "Macbeth"  chose  to  sheath  his  pri- 
vate life  and  personality  as  a  man  of  letters 
in  an  impenetrable  incognito — the  nothing- 
ness of  a  name. 

The  author  (Puttenham)  of  "The  Arts  of 
English  Poesie,"  an  anonymous  work  pub- 
lished in  1589,  says,  "I  know  very  many 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         193 

notable  gentlemen  in  the  court  that  have  writ- 
ten commendably,  and  suppressed  it  agayne, 
or  else  suffered  it  to  be  publisht  without  their 
owner's  name  to  it,  as  if  it  were  a  discredit  for 
a  gentleman  to  seeme  learned  and  to  show 
himself  amorous  of  any  good  Arte." 

As  these  things  were  so,  does  it  jar  you  or 
you  to  discover  a  cultured  nobleman,  the  Earl 
of  Derby,  writing  plays  for  the  common  play- 
ers in  the  year  1599,  the  same  year  in  which 
his  Lordship  or  some  unknown  other  wrote 
Henry  V  and  Much  Ado  About  Nothing. 
Mr.  James  Greenstreet  had  the  good  fortune 
to  discover  the  intercepted  dispatch  written 
by  a  foreign  ambassador  to  his  home  govern- 
ment. This  piece  of  information  was  dis- 
covered by  accident  in  the  place  in  which  the 
English  Public  Records  are  kept.  The  cour- 
tier's reason  for  concealment  was  to  shun  the 
presumption  of  living  by  his  pen.  For  the 
Elizabethan  notable  gentleman-poet  scorned 
the  professional  poet  and  considered  publish- 
ing stage  poetry  a  degradation.  It  is  ridi- 
culous, says  the  great  Advocate  John  Selden 
(1584-1654),  "for  a  lord  to  print  verses;  'tis 
well  enough  to  make  them  to  please  himself, 
but  to  make  them  public  is  foolish."  So  we 


194         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 


see  that  plain  people  were  not  the  only  on 
who  wrote  plays  in  this  great  poetic  age. 

But  the  upper  classes — great  folks,  had 
taken  a  hand  in  writing  plays  "on  the  sly." 
Robert  Greene  in  his  introductory  address  to 
the  gentlemen  students  of  both  universities, 
refers  to  certain  devotional  poets  "which  from 
their  calling  and  gravities  being  loath  to  have 
any  profane  pamphlets  pass  under  their  hand, 
get  some  Batillus  to  set  his  name  to  their 
verses.  Thus  is  the  ass  made  proud  by  this 
underhand  brokerie.  And  he  that  cannot 
write  true  English  without  the  help  of  clerks 
of  parish  churches  will  needes  make  him 
selfe  the  father  of  interludes." 

What  do  we  know  about  the  individual  life 
of  the  author  of  the  plays,  who  among  all  the 
great  men  of  his  age  was  the  greatest  answer- 
nothing  that  can  be  authenicated.  The 
Stratfordians  deny  the  truth  of  this  statement, 
and  in  their  attempt  at  refutation,  point  to 
the  Shakespeare-Southampton  dedication  of 
Venus  and  Adonis  as  a  memorable  poem 
which  they  allege  is  proof  of  certified  author- 
ship. 

But  are  we  to  accept  it  (Venus  and  Adonis) 
as  a  memorable  poem?  Surely  not  in  an  age 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         195 


when  printers  wrote  dedications.  When  edi- 
tors invented  and  signed  the  mask  name  while 
the  author  maintained  an  impenetrable  in- 
cognito as  in  the  case  of  Edmond  Spencer. 
When  the  Shepherd's  Calendar  was  printed 
pseudonymously  by  the  editor  E.  K.,  who  in- 
vented and  signed  Spencer's  pen  name. 

No  reputed  play  bore  the  name  "Shakes- 
>eare"  on  the  title  page  until  1598.  Thomas 

>dge  (1556-1625)  in  his  prose  satire  "Wits 
Misery,"  dated  1596,  enumerates  the  wits  of 

I  the  time.  Shakespeare  is  not  mentioned. 
Peter  Heylin  was  born  in  1599  and  died  in 
1662,  thus  being  seventeen  years  old  when 
Shakspere,  the  Stratford  player  died  in  1616. 
.n  reckoning  up  the  famous  dramatic  poets 
if  England,  he  omits  "Shakespeare." 

Philip  Henslow,  the  old  play  broker,  also 
in  writing  his  note  book  from  1591  to  1609, 
loes  not  even  mention  "Shakespeare,"  al- 
though he  records  the  title  of  no  fewer  than 
270  plays.  Henslow  was  in  theatrical  part- 
nership with  the  famous  "Ned  Allen"  in  con- 
nection with  the  Rose  and  Fortune  Theatres; 
Edward  Alleyn  personated  in  "Leir  the 
Moore  of  Venis,"  "Romeo,  Pericles  and 
Henry  VIII,"  "as  appears  from  his  inventory 


196         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

of  his  own  theatrical  wardrobe."  Henslowe 
records  in  his  Diary  on  June  9th,  1594,  that 
Hamlet  was  performed  by  his  company  (p. 
180).  Both  Mr.  Halliwell-Phillipps  and  Sir 
Sidney  Lee  say  that  Shakespeare  began  his 
career  as  a  dramatist  by  writing  plays  for  the 
manager,  Philip  Henslowe  at  the  Rose  The- 
atre. And  yet  Henslowe  makes  no  mention 
of  Shakespeare,  (p.  24-8). 

According  to  Henslow's  Diary  (note  book), 
Henry  the  Sixth  was  performed  as  a  new  play 
in  March,  1591.  This  is  conjectured  to  be 
the  play  referred  to  by  Nash,  acted  by  "Lord 
Strange's  men"  at  the  Rose  in  1592.  This  was 
not  the  company  to  which  Shakspere  the  Strat- 
ford player  belonged. 

Milton's  poem  on  Shakespeare  (1630)  was 
not  published  in  his  works  in  1645.  This 
eulogy  was  prefixed  to  the  folio  edition  of 
Shakespeare  (1632)  but  without  Milton's  $ 
name.  It's  pedigree  was  not  at  all  satisfac- 
tory. Milton's  acquaintance  with  Shakes- 
peare's verse  must  have  been  very  slight,  as 
shown  by  the  lines,— 

"Or     sweetest     Shakespere     fancy's 

child 
Warbles  his  native  wood  nttes  wild," 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         197 

»r  had  he  read  "Venus  and  Adonis,"  so  clas- 
sical and  formal,  he  would  agree  with  Walter 
lavage  Landor  that  no  poet  was  ever  less  a 
rarbler  of  "wood.nttes  wild." 

Now  in  fact,  after  the  publication  of  the 
irst  folio  edition  in  1623,  all  the  later  testi- 
tonies  are  repetitious,  suggestions  inspired  by 
ten  Jonson's  famous  ascription  to  Shakes- 
;are,  which  he  wrote  for  the  syndicate  of 
irinters  and  publishers,  with  a  view  to  the 
tie  of  the  work  in  1623. 
The  slight  mention  of  Shakespeare  by  the 
idicious  Webster,  as  Hazelt  calls  him,  com- 
prehends no  more  than  that  he  mistook  a 
pseudonymous  author  for  one  of  the  hack- 
writers of  the  day.  "Detraction  is  the  sworn 
friend  to  ignorance,  for  mine  own  part,  I  have 
ever  truly  cherished  my  good  opinion  of  other 
mens'  worthy  labors,  especially  of  that  full  and 
heightened  style  of  Master  Chapman,  the  la- 
bored and  understanding  works  of  Master 
Jonson,  the  no  less  worthy  composures  of  the 
both  worthily  excellent  masters  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  and  lastly  (without  wrong  last  to  be 
named)  the  right  happy  and  copious  industry 
of  Master  Shakespeare,  Master  Dekker  and 
[aster  Heywood." 


198         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

These  words  written  by  the  second  greatest 
English  tragic  poets  are  very  significant,  for 
Shakespeare's  distinctive  characteristics  are 
not  individualized  from  those  of  Dekker  and 
Heywood,  while  those  of  Chapman,  Jonson, 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  are. 

In  the  last  four  named  is  perfect  interlace- 
ment of  personality  with  authorship,  but  not 
so  in  Shakespeare,  for  industry  is  the  only  dis- 
tinguishing mark  which  he  must  share  with 
Dekker  and  Heywood,  hack  writers  for  the 
stage.  Dekker's  many  plays  attest  his  copious 
industry,  when  we  remember  that  this  writer 
spent  seven  years  in  prison,  and  Heywood's  in- 
dustry cannot  be  doubted  for  he  claimed  to 
have  had  a  hand  or  main  finger  in  two  hundred 
and  twenty  plays.  Bear  in  mind  when  the 
preface  to  Webster's  tragedy,  "The  White 
Devil,"  which  contains  this  slight  mention  of 
Shakespeare  was  printed  in  1612,  after  all  the 
immortal  plays  were  written  and  the  now  re- 
puted author  had  returned  to  Stratford,  prob- 
ably in  1611-1612  in  his  forty-seventh  year, 
where  he  lived  in  idleness  for  five  years  before 
his  death  from  the  effect  of  a  drunken  carou- 
sal, according  to  a  so-called  late  tradition, 
which  some  Stratfordians  employ,  not  as  an 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         199 

jpersion,  but  merely  to  show  that  the  Strat- 
actor  lead  a  jolly  life. 

John  Webster  possessed  a  critical  faculty 

id  an  independent  judgment,  but  the  way  he 
lakes  mention  of  Shakespeare  shows  that  he 

lew  nothing  about  the  individual  man  or 
the  works  called  "Shakespeare." 

The  generous  reference  to  "the  labored  and 
understanding  works  of  Master  Jonson,"  gives 
a  clear  idea  of  the  main  characteristics  of  the 
work  of  Ben  Jonson  who,  not  having  reached 
the  fruition  of  his  renown  in  1612,  but  in  the 
after  time  came  into  Dryden's  view  as  "The 
greatest  man  of  the  last  age,  the  most  learned 
and  judicious  writer  any  theatre  ever  had." 
John  Webster  writes  also  of  the  "no  less 
worthy  composures  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher."  Thus  in  the  morning  of  life  they 
present  an  excellent  type  for  purity  of  vocabu- 
lary and  neatness  of  expression,  and  were  of 
"loudest  fame;  Two  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  plays  were  acted  to  one  of  Shakes- 
peare's or  Ben  Jonson's"  in  Dryden's  time 
1631-1700. 

John  Webster's  judgment  of  his  fellow 
dramatist  was  just.  "I  have  ever  truly  cher- 
ished my  good  opinion  of  other  men's  worthy 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

labors."  Webster  never  conceals  or  misrepre- 
sents the  truth  by  giving  evasive  or  equivocat- 
ing evidence.  He  reveals  the  judicial  trait  of 
his  character  in  placing  Chapman  first  among 
cognizant  poets  then  living,  assuming  the 
name  "Shakespeare"  was  used  as  an  assumed 
name,  masking  the  true  name  of  the  greatest 
English  poet.  Sidney  Marlowe  and  Spencer 
had  then  descended  to  the  tomb. 

The  play  actor,  William  Shakspere  in  his 
life  time  was  not  publicly  credited  with  the 
personal  authorship  of  the  plays  and  poems 
called  "Shakespeare,"  except  possibly  by  three 
or  four  poeticules  such  as  Freeman,  Barnfield, 
Weever  and  Meres,  who  follow  each  other  in 
the  iteration  and  reiteration  of  the  same  in- 
sipid and  affected  compliments,  not  one  of 
them  implying  a  personal  acquaintance  with 
the  author,  but  who  erroneously  take  one  per- 
son for  another,  thus  identifying  the  wrong 
individuality.  Some  few  persons  may  have 
believed  that  the  player  and  playwright  were 
one  and  the  same  person  and  were  deceived 
into  so  believing.  This  much  we  do  know 
that  the  Stratford  actor  never  openly  sanc- 
tioned the  identification,  although  he  may  have 
been  accessory  to  the  deception  and  in  this 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         201 

mnection,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  also 

iat  no  poet  was  remembered  in  Shakspere's 

rill  as  were  the  actors. 

Of  the  thirty-six  plays  assigned  by  the  folio 
1623,  not  one  had  received  the  acknowledg- 

tent  of  their  reputed  author  (Shakespeare). 
Not  a  single  line  in  verse  or  prose  assented 
to  for  comparison  and  identification,  and  in 
the  absence  of  credible  evidence  of  (the  auth- 
or's true  name)  his  authorship  of  certain 
poems,  there  can  be  no  authoritative  sanction 
of  the  assignment.  No  person  writing  on  the 
subject  of  "Shakespeare"  can  write  a  literary 
life  of  the  individual  man,  for  player  Shak- 
spere  of  Stratford-on-Avon  does  not  offer  a 
single  point  of  correspondence  to  the  activities 

*f  a  literary  man  or  scholar. 
The  fantastical  critics  profess  to  read  the 
story  of  the  author's  life  in  his  works.  This  is 
an  absurdity,  for  dramatic  art  is  mainly  char- 
acter creation  and  cannot  be  made  to  disclose 
a  knowledge  of  his  private  life. 

Forty-six  years  after  the  death  of  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford,  "The  gentle-hum- 
ored" Thomas  Fuller  in  his  "Worthies,"  pub- 
lished posthumously  in  1662,  wrote  "Many 
were  the  wit  combats  betwixt  him  and  Ben 


202         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Jonson,  which  two  I  behold  like  a  Spanis 
great  galleon  and  an  English  man  of 
Master  Jonson,  like  the  former,  was  built  fai 
higher  in  learning  solid,  but  slow  in  his  pe: 
formance,  Shakespere  with  the  English  mi 
of  war,  lesser  in  bulk,  but  lighter  in  sailing, 
could  turn  with  all  tides,  tack  about  and  take 
advantage  of  all  winds  by  the  quickness  of  his 
wit  and  invention." 

Fuller  being  born  in  1608  was  only  eight 
years  old  when  player  Shakspere  of  Stratford 
died  and  but  two  years  old  when  he  quit  Lon- 
don. If  this  precocious  youngster  beheld  the 
"wit  combats"  of  the  two,  he  could  only  have 
beheld  them  as  he  lay  "mewling  and  puking 
in  his  nurse's  arms." 

The  facts  are  when  the  quaint  and  witty 
Fuller  was  six  years  old,  his  father  was  rector 
of  St.  Peter's  in  Aldwinkle.  The  boy  was 
sent  to  school  in  his  native  village  and  con- 
tinued at  that  school  for  four  years.  It's  not 
likely  that  the  lad  was  in  London  during 
player  Shakspere's  lifetime. 

Shakespeare's  contemporaries  had  nothing 
to  say,  in  fact,  and  in  criticism  of  either  au- 
thor or  works  of  any  consequence  during  the 
life  time  of  the  Stratford  player.  All  the  great 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         203 

ien  of  his  time  were  strangers  to  him.    No 

ige,  no  statesman,  no  orator,  no  man  of  lit- 
irary  eminence  whatever  left  any  description 
>f  "Shakespeare's"  manner  as  a  writer.  Is  it 

>ssible  that  the  great  men  of  that  age,  John 
n,    Sir   Walter   Raleigh,    Inigo   Jones, 

>rayton,  Hobbes,  Spencer,  Daniel,  Chapman, 
(en  Jonson,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  could 
lave  read  the  immortal  plays  and  not  have 
(receded  Mr.  James  Spedding  in  handing 
lown  to  posterity  something  about  Shakes- 
peare. "Close  packed  expression,  the  same  life 
ind  reality  and  freshness,  the  same  rapid  and 
ibrupt  turnings  of  thought,  so  quick  that  lan- 

lage  can  hardly  follow  fast  enough."     So 
transcendent  was  Shakespeare's  genius  for  ex- 
>ression. 

No  wonder  Dr.  Ingleby  is  led  to  say  that  "it 
is  plain  that  the  bard  of  our  admiration  was 
inknown  to  the  men  of  that  age." 
But  Sir  Sidney  Lee  boldly  asserts  (p.  586), 

lat  at  Shakespeare's  death  "no  mark  of  honor 

ras  denied  his  name."    There  is  no  intimation 
>f  the  truth  of  any  such  an  assertion  in  the 
records  of  integrity.    This  is  only  one  of  the 
Stratfordian  assertions  without  proof. 

However,  the  matter  of  fact  to  be  accentu- 


204         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ated  is  that  the  contemporaries  of  the  writer 
of  the  immortal  plays  did  not  know  positively 
*<who  wrote  them.  We  do  not  know  positively 
who  wrote  them,  and  our  latest  posterity,  when 
holy  Trinity's  monuments,  turrets  and  towers 
shall  have  crumbled  and  commingled  with  the 
shrined  dust  of  "him  who  sleeps  by  Avon," 
may  not  know  who  wrote  them. 

Suppose  now  we  go  to  Parnassus  Hill  for 
perfect  vision  above  the  mists  of  fabulation 
and  spurious  traditions,  and  examine  the  "Par- 
nassus Trilogy."  We  shall  see  that  the  aim 
of  the  Cambridge  dramatist  is  to  exhibit  the 
trials  and  sufferings  of  poor  scholars;  the  sel- 
fishness and  haughty  demeanor  of  the  com- 
mon players  who  are  made  sport  of  in  the 
later  scene  of  Part  III  of  The  Return.  The 
University  writer  introduces  Burbage  and 
Kemp,  two  actors  of  repute  who  are  made  to 
appear  as  professionals,  tutoring  candidates 
for  the  common  stage,  saying  one  thing  and 
meaning  the  opposite. 

The  Cambridge  ironist  seems  to  praise  that 
which  he  really  means  to  condemn  and  in 
mockery,  conveys  an  insult  in  the  form  of  a 
compliment,  when  Kemp  the  Morris  dancer 
of  the  professional  stage  is  made  to  observe 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         205 

jfore  an  academic  audience,  that  university 
days  imbibe  too  much  odor  of  the  schools. 
re  see  the  Morris-dancer  (Kemp)  brought 
irward  as  the  type  of  ignorance  in  the  pro- 
issional  player  who  thinks  that  Metamorpho- 
is  is  a  writer.  When  these  words  were  spoken 
Clare  Hall,  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge, 
the  very  headquarters  of  stagecraft,  when 
e  chronic  clashing  between  town  and  gown 
s  at  its  height,  the  gray  old  walls  of  the 

follege  Hall  must  have  resounded  with  a  roar 
:  derisive  laughter. 
Still  it  is  claimed  by  the  Stratfordians  that 
this  play  clearly  identifies  Shakespeare,  the 
Poet  and  Shakspere  the  player.  The  point 
is,  says  Mr.  Lang,  "that  Kemp  recognizes 
Shakespeare  as  both  actor  and  author."  The 
point  which  Mr.  Lang  has  missed  is  that  the 
ironist  is  setting  up  Kemp,  the  clown,  as  the 
type  of  ignorance  and  Shakspere  the  actor  as 
the  type  of  imposition  and  pretention  in  the 
strolling  player. 

The  writer  of  the  "Parnassus  Trilogy"  is 
unknown,  but  whomsoever  he  may  have  been 
was  a  very  accurate  and  close  observer  of  men 
and  events ;  who  makes  us  see  the  scholars  of 
those  days  after  their  graduation,  struggling 


206 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 


with  the  meanest  necessities  of  life  by  the 
disclosure  of  their  woeful  experience  and  the 
miserable  shifts  to  earn  a  livelihood  leading 
the  life  of  tramps  at  home  and  adventurers 
abroad,  where  they  fare  no  better,  convinced, 

That  it's  as  good  to  starve  'mongst 
English  swine, 

As  in  a  forraine  land  to  beg  and 
pine." 

In  "Pierce  Penilesse"  (1592)  Thomas 
Nash,  the  brilliant  satirist  and  member  of  th< 
University,  utters  a  wail  of  anguish  becaus< 
of  the  wretchedness  of  the  life  of  a  man  ol 
letters;  and  Ben  Jonson  embittered  by  th< 
woes  of  scholars,  writes,  "The  time  was  whei 
men  were  had  in  price  for  learning,  now  let- 
ters only  make  men  vile." 

"Better  is  it  among  fiddlers  to  be 
chief, 

Than  at  a  player's  trench  beg  relief; 

But  is  it  not  strange  those  mimic  apes 
should  prize 

Unhappy  scholars  at  a  hireling's  rate. 

Vile  world  that  lifts  them  up  to  high 
degree. 

But  treads  us  down  in  grovelling  mis- 
ery. 

England  affords  those  glorious  vaga- 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         207 

bonds 

'hat  carried  erst  their  fardels  on 
their  backs 

Coursers  to  ride  on  through  the  gaz- 
ing streets 

Icopping  it  in  their  glaring  satin 
suits 

.nd  pages  to  attend  their  master- 
ships. . 

rith  mouthing  words  that  better 
wits  have  framed 

'hey  purchase  lands  and  now  es- 
quiries  are  made." 

The  reader  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  the  aim  of  the  Cambridge  dramatist  is  to 
satirize  the  public  taste  for  studies  of  amour- 
ous  passion  by  setting  up  Gullio,  the  lascivious 
boaster,  the  pretender  to  learning,  who  com- 
missions his  lacky  to  rehearse  amorous  speech- 
es, mainly  variations  on  lines  in  "Venus  and 
Adonis,"  holding  up  to  scorn  this  lustful  poem 
as  the  favorite  of  the  lewd  or  unchaste  class 
of  the  population. 

"Let  this  duncified  world  esteem  of  Spencer 
and  Chaucer,  I'll  worship  sweet  Mr.  Shakes- 
peare, and  to  honor  him  will  lay  his  Venus 

id  Adonis  under  my  pillow." 


208         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

The  Cambridge  dramastist  makes  it  plain 
enough  that  the  poem  "Venus  and  Adonis" 
was  popular  with  the  unchaste  classes,  but 
there  is  nothing  from  the  mouth  of  Gullio, 
the  braggadocio  and  professed  libertine  in  the 
second  part  where  the  ironist  is  satirizing 
the  public  taste  for  amourous  verse  which  re- 
flect the  individual  life  of  the  great  Eliza- 
bethan Junius  (Shakespeare). 

Or  in  the  latter  scene  of  Part  III  of  the 
Return  where  the  Cambridge  dramatist  from 
the  mouth  of  Kemp  in  mockery  is  conveying 
the  opposite  of  what  is  said  when  Shakspere, 
a  strolling  stage  player  is  made  a  laughing 
stock  before  the  Gownsmen  of  the  University. 
This  is  made  manifest  when  the  St.  John's 
playwright  in  derision  represents  the  common 
players  so  ignorant  that  they  think  that  Meta- 
morphosis is  a  writer  and  that  one  Shakespeare 
(Shakspere)  of  their  fellowship,  "puts  Ben 
Jonson  and  his  fellow  craftsmen  all  down,  giv- 
ing "Rare  Ben"  a  purge  that  made  him  bewray 
his  credit." 

This  passage  so  perplexing  to  the  uphold- 
ers of  the  Stratford  Shakespere  delusion  was 
well  understood  by  the  St.  John's  audience 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         209 

hich  was  polar  opposite  to  that  now  held  by 
ie  Stratfordians. 

Will  Kemp,  the  jig  and  morris-dancer  is 
lade  to  exclaim  "O,  that  Ben  Jonson  is  a 
estilent  fellow."     No  wonder  the  common 
[avers  should  consider  Ben  Jonson  a  trouble- 
me  fellow,  for  they  were  still  smarting  from 
the    severe    chastisement    he    gave    them    in 
Poetaster." 

The  play  was  brought  out  at  the  Black- 
friars  a  month  or  two  before  by  the  Children 
of  the  Chappie  in  1601,  and  in  it  Ben  Jonson 
undertook  their  castigation,  for  the  players 
had  long  provoked  him  on  the  stage  with  their 
taunts,  and  in  conjunction  with  his  other  ene- 
mies, endeavored  to  put  him  down.  There  is 
still  another  reason  why  the  common  player 
should  regard  Ben  Jonson  pestiferous  from 
their  point  of  view,  and  that  is  his  taking  the 
part  of  the  Children  of  the  Chappie  Royal  in 
their  conflict  with  the  adult  actors  of  the  pro- 
fessional stage  in  the  "War  of  the  Theatres." 
The  Children  of  the  Chappie  were  very  popu- 
lar, due  to  their  habit  of  cleanliness  and  his- 
trionic success.  George  Chapman  and  Ben 
Jonson,  writing  for  their  stage,  gave  them  the 
upper  hand  in  the  fight  that  put  the  profes- 


210         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL,  PHASE 

sional  players  down  and  out  of  business  for 
the  popularity  of  the  Children  of  the  Chappie 
Royal  drew  from  the  common  playhouse,  the 
pleasure  seeking  public,  who  preferred  them 
to  any  company  of  adult  actors.  So  the  pro- 
fessionals were  compelled  to  close  their  play 
house,  glad  to  turn  tramps  and  stroll  from 
town  to  town. 

For  be  it  remembered  that  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain's Company  of  which  Shakspere  was  a 
member  were  forced  to  leave  London  on  or 
before  this  time  1601-02  "with  their  fardels 
(blankets)  on  their  backs."  By  reason  of  hav- 
ing been  defeated  in  their  conflict  with  the 
Children  of  the  Chappie,  a  courtier  in  Ham- 
let has  made  us  see  that  the  children  of  the 
Chappie  have  superseded  the  adult  actors  in 
popular  esteem. 

In  answer  to  Hamlet's  question,  why  the 
common  players  travel  when  it  was  better  both 
for  reputation  and  profit  that  they  should  stay 
in  the  city,  Rosecrantz  replies  that  the  theatre 
going  public  were  deserting  the  theatres  in 
which  adults  held  the  stage,  and  that  their 
itinerary  has  been  caused  by  the  "late  innova- 
tion." 

A  person  in  "Jack  Drum's  Enterment"  is 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         211 

tade  to  say  of  those  who  gave  the  Children 
of  the  Chappie  audience: 

"I  like  the  audience  that  frequenteth  there, 
ith  much  applause  a  man  shall  not  be 
;hocked  to  the  barrny  jacket  of  a  beer  brewer.'* 

But  in  spite  of  bitterness  and  class  distinc- 
tion between  the  academic  and  professional 
jtage,  "the  latter  was  constantly  being  re- 
quited from  graduates  who  had  gained  their 
:arliest  dramatic  experience  as  spectators,  ac- 

irs  and  authors  of  college  plays." 

The  collection  called  Shakespearean  usually 
•ublished  under  the  name  "Shakespeare"  are 

lemorials  of  the  University  stage,  and  the  leg- 
it inns  of  court,  many  of  them  worked  over  by 
the  great  unknown — a  greater  Junius,  "the 

lagical  hand  which  has  never  yet  been  suc- 
;essfully  imitated."  The  Shakespeare  plays 
.re  academic  (a  part  of  them)  in  the  sense 

lat  they  were  originally  written  in  part  and 
tcted  by  University  men  within  College  walls, 
dthough  remodelled  and  interpolated  for  the 
Tofessional  stage.  Still  exhale  the  academic 
fragrance  of  ancient  literature  and  ancient 
>hilosophy,  all  the  classic  odors  from  the  land 
>f  flowery  meads  and  purple  sky,  were  per- 
ceived by  the  great  unknown,  as  all  careful 


212         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

students  will  perceive.  For  the  author  of  the 
Plays  and  Poems  is  saturated  with  the  litera- 
ture of  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  and  there  is 
an  ostentatious  display  of  erudition  in  classi- 
cal lore. 

In  an  epistle  by  Thomas  Nash,  a  gowns- 
man of  the  College,  to  the  gentlemen  students 
of  both  Universities,  prefixed  to  Robert 
Green's  novel  "Menaphon,"  printed  in  1589, 
there  is  an  allusion  to  the  "shifty  play  wright 
who  from  English  Seneca,  if  you  entreat  him 
fair  in  a  frostie  morning,  he  will  afford  you 
whole  Hamlets,  I  should  say  handfulls  of 
tragical  speeches."  We  know  from  the  title 
page  of  the  first  quarto  of  Hamlet  (1603) 
when  the  play  is  said  to  have  been  acted  in 
the  two  Universities,  we  also  know  that  "Vol- 
phone"  received  the  same  distinction  by  the 
grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  author,  Ben 
Jonson. 

However,  the  gownsmen  would  scarcely 
recognize  their  work  after  its  passage  from 
the  academic  to  the  professional  stage,  so 
pawed  over  by  actors  and  bemuddled  for  the 
"gags"  of  the  clowns.  Of  this  we  may  be  sure, 
that  so  long  as  Hamlet  retained  an  academic 
environment,  its  scholar  hero  was  not  made 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         213 

grotesquely  ridiculous  as  in  the  pathetic  scene 
over  the  skull  of  Yorick,  the  gruesome  relic 
if  his  playmate  in  childhood,  or  by  the  inter- 
polated slang  expressions  contained  in  Ham- 
let's soliloquoy  on  ending  the  sorrows  of  life 
in  death.    But  we  are  safe  in  supposing  that 
Burbage  and  his  "men  players"  knew  what  the 
:requenters  of  the  public  play  house  wanted 
ind  did  not  hesitate  at  the  employment  of 
slang  phrases  and  sensational  tricks,  or  the  in- 
troduction of  anachronisms. 

Philip  Henslowe  makes  mention  of  a  Ham- 
let presented  June  9th,  1594,  which  was  an 
>ld  play  (now  lost),  doubtless  by  Thomas 
Kyd,  one  of  the  University  bred  men  who 
rrote  stage  plays  which  served  for  something 
lore  than  as  the  basis  for  the  "Shakespeare" 
plays.  It  seems  certain  that  the  "great  un- 
known" found  much  that  he  turned  to  his  own 
account  in  remodelling  Hamlet. 

The  Stratford  mythomanic  disturbance  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  plays  were  but  little 
read  or  discussed  in  the  life  time  of  the  Strat- 
ford player  (Shakspere)  or  a  considerable 
time  thereafter,  as  only  about  half  of  those 
contained  in  the  folio  of  1623  were  in  print 


214         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

previous  to  the  folio  edition,  and  all  of  them 
surreptitiously. 

When  the  folio  of  1623  was  published,  the 
plays  attributed  to  William  Shakspere,  the 
Stratford  player,  had  been  written  many  of 
them  for  more  than  thirty  years,  having  in  all 
this  time  attained  no  considerable  repute  or 
celebrity.  The  Shakespeare  tragedies  were 
very  seldom  played  at  court,  only  one  during 
the  long  reign  of  James  the  First.  Twenty 
plays  were  not  even  printed  in  quarto  before 
the  folio  of  1623,  seven  years  after  player 
Shakspere's  death.  The  name  Shakespeare 
was  placed  on  the  title  page  by  printers  and 
publishers  to  mark  the  excess  in  producing 
studies  of  amorous  passion,  and  not  because  of 
the  popularity  of  any  individual  who  may 
have  borne  the  amorously  inspired  name, 
which  derived  nearly  all  of  its  commercial 
value  in  connection  with  the  erotic  poem 
"Venus  and  Adonis"  of  which  before  the  end 
of  1630,  several  quarto  editions  had  appeared. 

If  the  Shakespeare  plays  had  been  as  popu- 
lar as  the  Poems,  twenty  of  them  would  not 
have  remained  in  manuscript,  more  especially 
if  the  author,  as  is  alleged,  was  a  "partner  in 
the  profits  of  what  they  call  the  house"  for 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         215 

he  would  not  have  sold  them  (the  plays). 
"In  the  strict  sense,  Ben  Jonson  managed  to 
retain  the  control  of  his  dramas,"  and  that  too, 
without  property  interest  in  the  play  house. 
Why  not  the  play  actor  from  Stratford  if  the 
author  of  the  plays  called  "Shakespeare." 

The  title,  so  called,  which  is  now  assumed, 
in  favor  of  the  Stratford  Shakspere  was  not 
recognizable  then.  The  play  houses  were  the 
repository  of  the  plays,  the  share  holding  ac- 
tors the  custodians,  and  the  illiterate  fre- 
quenters of  the  public  play  house  the  critics, 
who  never  thought  it  worth  while  to  discuss 
authorship.  As  for  the  literati,  they  would 
not  soil  their  hands  with  such  riff-raff  as  play 
books. 

The  Poems  which  were  most  conspicuously 
associated  with  the  name  Shakespeare  are  ab- 
sent from  the  printed  pages  of  the  folio 
(1623).  The  syndicate  of  printers  and  pub- 
lishers seems  to  have  known  nothing  of  the 
personal  and  literary  life  of  the  author  of  the 
plays,  as  the  folio  of  1623  contains  nothing 
of  a  biographical  history;  not  the  slightest  ef- 
fort made  to  illustrate  the  individual  life  of 
the  Stratfordian  fraudulently  set  up  by  the  two 
players  Hemming  and  Condell,  assuming,  of 


216         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

course,  that  they  were  not  so  ignorant  as  to 
mistake  the  actor's  copy  for  the  original  manu- 
script, and  that  they  did  not  believe  that  all 
the  preceding  issues,  the  quarto  texts  upon 
which  the  1623  folio  text  "was  founded  in  part 
were  stolen  and  surreptitious  copies  maimed 
and  deformed."  While  they  actually  reprinted 
in  part  these  deformed  and  stolen  copies  and 
practised  a  fraudulent  deception  when  they 
announced  that  all  the  dramas  were  now  pub- 
lish "according  to  the  original  copies." 

Many  writers  on  the  subject  of  Shakespeare 
assert  that  the  dramatist  of  that  day  did  not 
print  and  publish  their  plays  because  they  had 
sold  them  to  the  play  houses — a  mistaken  no- 
tion. The  authors  could  easily  have  secured 
permission  from  the  play  brokers  as  there  was 
a  new  play  coming  out  every  eighteen  days, 
according  to  Henslowe's  Diary.  Ben  Jonson 
published  his  plays  how  we  don't  know,  but 
the  play  brokers  Henslowe  and  Burbage 
would  (probably)  have  been  glad  to  have 
parted  with  plays  they  called  old,  although 
of  quite  recent  date,  such  as  Richard  II  and 
the  like.  The  reason  why  the  great  mass  of 
dramatic  literature  was  produced  anony- 
mously was  due,  in  part,  to  the  prevalence  of 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         217 

ie  common  informers,  termed  "State  deci- 
herers,"  "a  most  lewde  and  detestable  profes- 
ion,"  and  the  authors'  desire  to  escape  bodily 
ffliction  and  not  because  their  works  were 
rretrievable. 

For  the  play  makers  could  in  all  probability 

ave  secured  permission  to  publish.     "Many 

writers  before  there  existed  a  reading  public 

wore  the  mask  of  a  fictitious  name  and  were 

pseudonymous." 

VII. 

There  is  another  stumbling  block  which 
sends  the  upholders  of  the  Stratford  Shakspere 
myth  sprawling.  We  have  reference  to 
Thomas  Heywood's  epistle  before  his  "Apo- 
logy for  Actors"  which  contains  his  publicly 
printed  protest  against  the  filching  of  two 
poems  from  his  Trioa  Britannic  a t  which  he 
found  printed  in  an  anthology,  entitled  "The 
Passionate  Pilgrim,"  a  collection  of  amourous 
songs,  published  by  William  Jaggard,  a  pirate 
publisher.  The  volume  contained  twenty 
pieces  in  all  and  but  five  assigned  to  the  dis- 
guised author  poet,  whose  mask  name 
(Shakespeare)  was  on  the  title  page  until  re- 
moved as  the  result  of  Heywrood  protest.  The 


218         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

bulk  of  the  volume  was  by  Marlow,  Barnfield, 
Griffin,  Heywood,  Raleigh  and  various  un- 
known authors,  not  one  of  whom,  Heywood 
alone  excepted,  appear  to  have  raised  any  pro- 
test, and  surely  "Shakespeare,"  the  pseudony- 
mous poet,  whose  poems  in  the  main  they  were 
not,  would  not  and  did  not  raise  any. 

At  the  time  the  volume  was  issued  in  1599, 
the  Stratford  player  (Shakspere)  was  alive, 
living  in  London  and  could  not  have  been 
ignorant  of  the  publication,  had  a  "manifest 
injury"  been  done  him.  It's  an  unwarrantable 
assumption  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Ingleby  and 
other  writers  on  the  subject  of  Shakespeare  to 
say  that  Heywood's  dedicatory  epistle  before 
his  "Apology  for  Actors"  is  a  record  of  pro- 
test on  Shakespeare's  part,  a  thing  taken  for 
granted  without  proof,  Heywood  writes :  "So 
the  author  I  know  much  offended  with  M. 
Jaggard  that  altogether  unknown  to  him  pre- 
sumed to  be  so  bold  with  his  name."  And  yet 
the  author  whom  Heywood  claimed  to  have 
known,  suffered  three  editions  of  this  spurious 
work  for  twelve  years  to  issue  from  the  press, 
and  says  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  "This  is  the  only 
instance  on  record  of  a  protest  on  Shakes- 
peare's part  against  the  many  injuries  which 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         219 

suffered  at  the  hands  of  contemporary  pub- 
jhers."  (p.  183).    This  earnest  Stratfordian 
;s  not  perceive  the  difference  between  proof 
id  opinion.     Shakespeare  raised  no  protest 
the  fraud.    Heywood  merely  says,  "the  au- 
ir  I  know  much  offended,"  whomsoever  he 
ty  have  been. 

But  Heywood  did  not  know  even  this  much, 
ior  the  volume  is  a  mere  compilement  of 
imourous  rhymes  which  had  been  drawn  from 
various  writers,  a  book  without  original  re- 
search, an  anthology,  and,  of  course,  not  au- 
thored by  Shakespeare,  or  any  one  of  the  vari- 
ous contributors  of  the  material  for  the  com- 
pilation. 

Had  Heywood  examined  the  Anthology,  he 
could  not  have  been  so  blunderingly  stupid 
as  to  mistake  compilation  for  authorism,  more 
especially  if  the  title  page  bore  the  pseudony- 
mous name  "Shakespeare,"  and  that  notorious 
plunderer  and  pickpocket  of  literary  prop- 

fty,  William  Jaggard. 
Heywood  in  no  way  connects  the  play  actor, 
Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon  with  Shakes- 
peare the  author  poet.  He  also  knew  that  the 
name  "Shakespeare"  on  the  title  page  is  no 
proof  of  authorship.  But  as  the  complaining 


220         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

witness,  Heywood  himself  has  shown  by  the 
detection  of  the  fraud,  actually  a  presumption 
against  it;  for  there  are  as  many  as  fifteen 
plays  which  commentators  now  admit  that 
Shakespeare  the  author  poet  did  not  write. 

This  is  but  one  of  the  many  abortive  at- 
tempts by  the  biographers  and  commentators 
to  establish  personal  relationship  with  Shaks- 
pere  or  Shakespeare  and  his  literary  contem- 
poraries, disclosing  an  irrepressible  desire  to 
discover  player  and  poet  under  the  same  hood. 

There  is  therefore  no  prima  facie  reason 
why  we  should  not  conceive  a  concealed  author 
poet,  an  elder  Junius  having  a  large  share  in 
the  work  (Shakespeare).  In  an  age  of  letter 
writing,  there  is  nothing  in  its  epistolary  cor- 
respondence in  regard  to  an  author  poet  per- 
sonal to  "Shakespeare;"  no  trace  is  found  in 
its  literary  or  social  life  of  the  individual  man. 

The  Stratfordians  much  prefer  to  have  a 
definite  name  taken  to  be  claimant  as  the  au- 
thor of  the  plays  and  poems  by  all  those  who 
are  against  the  "Stratforder"  as  the  Stratford 
arsenal  contains  no  weapon  for  defensive  war- 
fare, and  is  therefore  in  a  wretched  state  for 
defense,  which  the  professionally  trained 
students  of  literary  history  are  unable  to  rem- 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         221 

ly;  for  this  reason  the  Stratfordians  are  so- 

citious  for  a  definite  and  famous  name;  a 

aimant   having   a   conspicious   personality, 

ore  especially  a  character  whom  they  regard 

vulnerable  most  to  the  darts  of  the  criticas- 

,  and  one  whose  defense  must  necessitate 

ie  withdrawal  of  the  enemy's  fire  in  some 

gree  from  Stratford. 

But  the  present  writer  would  prefer  the 
uch  lighter  task  of  bringing  forward  evi- 
nce tending  to  prove  the  pseudonymity  of 
author.    The  obligation  of  furnishing  evi- 
nce to  prove  who  that  somebody  was  does 
t  lie  upon  those  whose  aim  is  to  prove  the 
eudonymity     and     anomalousness     of    the 
rorks.      We    know    that    the    works    called 
Shakespeare"    and    the   well-known    fables 
ailed  ./Esopus,  although,  of  course,  not  corn- 
ed by  ^Esop,  as  every  one  knows,  for  their 
dernity  is  clearly  established,  are  associated 
th  definite  names,  the  one  with  that  of  an 
glish  actor,  the  other  a  Greek  slave,  whose 
ividuality,  however,  is  not  more  fabulous 
d  mythical  than  is  the  external  life  of  the 
thor  of  the  works  called  "Shakespeare." 
It  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  show  that  people 
the  elder  time  did  not  share  our  admiration 


222         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

for  the  Shakespeare  plays,  and  there  should  be 
some  abatement  of  the  notion  that  a  false  or 
fictitious  name  may  not  baffle  the  most  de- 
termined inquiries  for  the  Junius  letters  an 
proof  against  any  such  assumption.  For  not- 
withstanding all  the  discussion  and  excitemeni 
caused  by  the  publication,  the  writer  was  not 
discovered,  nor  do  we  know  positively  wh< 
wrote  them.  For  the  authorship  of  ajunius," 
like  the  authorship  of  "Shakespeare"  wj 
never  acknowledged  either  publicly  or  pri- 
vately. The  evidence  for  the  authorship  i< 
thus  wholly  circumstantial,  and  the  questioi 
remains  still  undecided,  and  one  of  the  most 
noted  examples  of  concealed  authorship. 

The  first  of  the  celebrated  letters  of  Junii 
appeared  on  the  21st  of  January,  1769,  in  th< 
Public  Advertiser,  one  of  the  leading  news- 
papers of  the  time  and  made  by  far  the  great- 
est sensation  in  the  political  and  literal 
world.  For  lucidity  and  force  there  is  nothinj 
quite  equal  to  them  in  our  literature.  Hii 
sentences  cut  and  sparkled  like  diamonds. 
"King,  Lords  and  commons  are  but  the  spoi 
of  his  fury;  his  searching  eye  penetrate< 
equally  into  the  retired  circles  of  domesti< 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         223 

the  cabinets  of  ministers  and  the  closet  of 
King."  (Burke). 

-iis  supreme  ambition  has  been  realized  in 
enmities,  for  he  had,  indeed,  "preserved 
perishable  infamy  of  their  names  and  made 
m  immortal."  Sir  Philip  Francis  has  been 
nted  at  as  the  "Man  in  the  Mask"  but  when 
letters  of  Junius  were  issuing  from  the 
;ss  of  the  Public  Advertiser,  Edmund 
rke  was  thought  by  many  distinguished  per- 
s  to  be  the  writer  of  the  letters.  Now 
rybody  knows  that  Burke  did  not  write 
lius. 

Die  Franciscan  theory  of  Junius,  as  it  is 
led,  is  advanced  by  DeQuincy,  Lord  Ma- 
ilay,  and  others,  although  Francis  was  never 
ntioned  in  connection  with  the  celebrated 
ters  until  1814,  forty-five  years  after  the 
>t  of  the  far-famed  letters  of  Junius  had  ap- 
ired.  He  (Francis)  died  in  1818,  failing  to 
knowledge  the  identity  of  Junius  with  Fran- 
,  thence  forward  and  forever  more  insuring 
rpetual  secrecy — the  immunity  of  dream- 
dust. 

But  in  this  connection,  our  purpose  is  not 
discover  the  author  of  the  "Letters,"  but  to 
int  out  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  ex- 


224         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

amples  of  concealed  authorship  of  the  Eigh- 
teenth Century.  The  remarkable  volume  en- 
titled "Ecce  Homo"  is  still  more  recent  and 
one  of  the  most  noted  of  uncertified  author- 
ship. Conditions  were  much  more  favorable 
to  the  maintenance  of  secrecy  in  the  literary 
and  political  world  in  Shakespeare's  time, 
when  perversion  and  deception  is  not  only  sub- 
sidiary to  Tudor  and  Jacobin  philosophy,  but 
part  and  parcel  of  it.  There  could  have  been 
no  great  mystery  about  the  secrecy  or  pseu- 
donymity  of  authorship  of  works  that  were 
not  even  recognized  by  the  Republic  of  Let- 
ters, nor  at  Court,  as  plays  of  special  eminency, 
much  less  an  epoch  making  work.  There  were 
several  motives  for  concealed  authorship  dur- 
ing the  struggle  for  constitutional  freedom 
against  prerogative  in  the  turbulent  reign  of 
the  Stuarts,  which  is  one  of  the  periods  in  Eng- 
lish history  when  the  acknowledgment  of  au- 
thorship meant  danger.  In  Tudor  and  Ja- 
cobin times,  works  were  published  under  a 
false  name  with  the  distinct  intention  to  in- 
duce people  to  believe  them  the  works  of  those 
whose  names  they  bore,  or  of  works  errone- 
ously attributed  to  a  wrong  person. 

Sir  Thomas   Brown   complained   that  his 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         223 

name  was  being  used  to  float  books  that  he 
never  wrote.  We  cannot  agree  with  the  up- 
holders of  the  Stratford  Shakespere  myth 
madness  who  say,  "That  the  real  authorship 
could  have  been  kept  a  secret,  would  be  a 
greater  mystery,  more  inexplicable,  than  the 
Sphinx."  Nonsense. 

The  English  speaking  people  are  peculiarly 
liable  to  delusion  or  as  the  great  American 
'showman  and  hoaxer,  Phineas  T.  Barnum 
says,  "The  people  like  to  be  fooled"  and  some 
people  seem  to  think  gullibility  a  blessing 
Whether  they  love  fooling  or  not,  people  are 
fooled  by  delusion  and  tabulation,  and  seem 
to  favor  hoaxing  and  have  seldom  been  dis- 
appointed for  there  has  been  no  limit  to  Brit- 
ish and  American  credulity,  especially  in  the 
elder  time  when  falsehood  rather  than  truth 
determine  the  fate  of  mankind.  When  delu- 
sion, tabulation  and  mythomania,  so  affluent 
in  the  fruition  of  evil,  had  gained  possession 
of  the  confidence  of  the  people,  even  amongst 
the  most  progressive  communities.  English 
and  American  credulity  is  chiefly  responsible 
for  the  perpetuity  of  the  great  literary  hoax, 
associated  with  the  Stratford  player's  name, 


226         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

giving  support  to  later  fabrication  and  nebul- 
ous traditions. 

The  reality  of  witchcraft  has  been  accepted 
without  question.  Not  to  believe  in  witch- 
craft in  Shakespeare's  time  was  the  greatest 
of  heresies.  "Scarcely  any  human  belief  is 
supported  by  so  vast  a  quantity  of  recorded 
testimony."  Belief  in  that  diabolical  super- 
stition was  entertained  by  the  great  jurist,  Sir 
Matthew  Hale,  the  famous  physician;  Sir 
Thomas  Browne,  the  celebrated  Divine;  Dr. 
Bentley,  and  the  great  English  advocate,  John 
Selden. 

However,  to  Reginal  Scot,  1538-1599,  an 
English  student  and  John  Wier,  1515-1588, 
the  learned  Flemish  physician,  the  modern 
world  is  indebted  for  the  suppression  of 
witchcraft,  for  that  most  malicious  and  tena- 
cious of  all  primeaval  superstitions,  for  they 
set  the  joy  bells  of  Christendom  ringing. 

Myths,  legends  and  fables  have  had  an  in- 
calculable effect  upon  the  activities  and  destiny 
of  mankind,  and  in  some  ways,  some  of  them 
a  good  effect.  For  instance,  that  of  the  mytho- 
logical marksman,  William  Tell,  whose  stir- 
ring deeds  were  celebrated  by  one  of  the  great- 
est poets  and  one  of  the  most  popular  com- 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         227 

posers  of  modern  times,  thus  giving  the  legend 
a  world-wide  fame.  A  Swiss  writer  calls  the 
William  Tell  story  pure  fable,  but  neverthe- 
less proclaiming  his  belief  in  it  because  the 
legend  is  so  popular.  But  it  was  reserved  for 
Parson  Uriel  Frendenberge  to  show  in  an 
anonymous  pamphlet  (1760)  that  the  legend 
of  Tell  had  a  Danish  origin;  the  pamphlet 
was  publicly  burned  by  order  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Uri.  The  legend,  although  localized 
in  Uri  is  an  old  Aryan  myth.  But  the  beauti- 
ful story  is  a  lesson  of  patriotism  to  the  Swiss 
mountaineer,  nerving  his  soul  to  avenge  the 
wrongs  of  his  country,  the  land  of  his  fathers, 
the  shield  of  his  infancy,  the  inspiration  of  his 
children,  who  are  to  enshrine  and  celebrate 
its  hallowed  memories  in  Odes  and  battle 
hymns. 

Mankind  seems  to  have  practised,  from  the 
beginning,  every  form  of  artifice  and  deceit. 
This  tendency  to  falsehood  and  fabulation  so 
characteristic  of  the  age  of  Shakespeare,  but 
not  peculiar  to  that  or  any  period,  for  man- 
kind have  been  hoaxed  and  befooled  many 
times  before  and  since  the  age  of  Shakespeare. 
For  example,  the  great  collection  known  as 
the  Collectio  Pseudo-Isidoriana  or  "False  De- 


22S         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

cretals,"  published  in  Spain  about  (845). 
These  false  decretals  consist  of  about  one  hun- 
dred spurious  documents  and  contain  also  the 
pretended  Donation  of  Constantinc.  No 
suspicion  attached  to  the  Pseudo  Isidore  at 
the  time  of  its  first  appearance  nor  for  more 
than  500  years  thereafter.  "Not  a  whisper 
of  doubt,  not  a  murmur  of  surprise;"  on  the 
contrary,  it  was  everywhere  accepted  without 
question.  "They  enjoyed  an  undisputed  au- 
thority, an  unsuspected  title  from  their  first 
appearance  about  the  middle  of  the  Ninth 
Century  to  the  Fifteenth  Century,"  when  Car- 
dinal Nicholas  de  Cusa  disclosed  their  ficti- 
tious character. 

The  present  writer's  reference  to  the  "Isi- 
dorian  Decretals"  is  not  to  show  that  they  be- 
came potent  in  their  influence  on  the  primitive 
system  of  Church  polity  for  the  establishment 
of  a  pure  theoracy,  but  to  call  the  reader's  at- 
tention to  an  early  and  one  of  the  most  noted 
examples  of  concealed  authorship  and  to  the 
fact  that  the  unknown  writer  had  changed  the 
course  of  human  history,  affecting  the  destinies 
of  nations,  imposing  upon  the  credulity  of 
mankind  for  more  than  five  hundred  years. 
And  be  it  noted  that  the  unknown  writer  of 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         UJ9 

the  "Decretals,"  like  the  unknown  writer  of 
the  plays  and  poems  called  "Shakespeare,"  did 
live  and  die  without  leaving  in  history  or  so- 
ciety a  single  trace  of  his  external  life,  except 
his  share  in  the  works. 

Believe  or  deny  what  you  may  in  regard  to 
the  claim  of  the  Stratford  actor's  authorship 
set  up  by  the  "Players,"  the  open-minded 
reader  knows  full  well  that  it  is  not  on  each 
particular  fact  or  thing  done  taken  separately, 
but  on  all  the  facts  taken  consecutively  that  the 
negative  case  must  be  judged. 

I  will  now  endeavor  to  summarize  the  con- 
clusion of  the  subject  matter  which  has  grown 
under  my  hand  month  after  month.  In  the 
view  of  those  "spacious  times"  I  have  entered 
thoroughly  into  the  spirit  and  fiber  of  the 
man — Shakspere,  (whether  he  was  or  was  not 
the  author  in  question).  "What  sort  of  man 
was  he?"pithily  put,  is  the  subject  of  my  in- 
vestigation. 

The  records  do  not  establish  the  identity  of 
the  Supreme  Poet,  an  assertion  put  in  proof 
by  the  silence  of  his  compeers,  which  is  dis- 
closed by  the  irrepressible  negative  pregnants 
from  the  ensemble  of  the  facts  such  as  the 
striking  example  of  the  silence  of  Cuthbert 


L>30         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHAB 

Burbage,  the  brother  of  Richard,  the  famous 
actor.  When  Cuthbert  petitioned  the  Earl  of 
Pembroke  in  1635,  then  Lord  Chamberlain,  in 
the  matter  about  certain  theatres, — "To  our- 
selves," he  says,  "we  joined  those  deserving 
men,  Shakespeare,  Hemings,  Condall,  Philips 
and  other  partners,  in  the  profits  of  that  they 
call  the  House,"  and  he  adds,  "that  when  he 
and  his  brother  took  possession  of  Blackfriars 
in  1609,  they  placed  in  it  man  players,  which 
were  Heming,  Condall,  Shakspeare,  etc." 

In  this  address  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain 
came  Cuthbert  Burbage's  opportunity  to  ad- 
vantage his  associates  and  himself,  as  a  busi- 
ness man  and  proprietor  of  the  play  houses. 
To  remind  the  Earl  of  the  fact— if  fact  it 
was — that  "our  fellow  Shakspere,"  "a  man 
player,"  and  a  "deserving  man,"  had  been  a 
man  of  unsurpassed  intelligence,  whose  works 
are  the  highest  creations  of  genius,  whose 
praise  Ben  Jonson  in  a  panegyrical  poem 
(1623),  blew  into  the  trumpet  of  fame.  But 
in  his  memorial  to  Lord  Pembroke,  the  house- 
holder of  the  Globe  Theatre  did  not  resound 
Shakspere's  praise,  but,  instead,  the  reputed 
author  twelve  years  after  the  publication  of 
the  Great  Folio,  is  described  to  his  Lordship 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         231 

as  merely  a  "man  player  and  a  deserving  man," 
and  nothing  more. 

The  affirmative  assertions,  prefixed  to  the 
Folio  editions,  published  in  1623,  and  signed 
by  the  players,  "John  Heminge"  and  "Henrie 
Condall,"  cannot  outweigh  the  negative  evi- 
dence of  Cuthbert  Burbage  from  silence  in 
1635 ;  for  in  our  grasp  of  the  situation  if  Shaks- 
pere  is  "Shakespeare,"  Cuthbert's  silence  is 
perfectly  astonishing. 

The  play  houses  were  in  need  of  all  the  sup- 
port the  mighty  genius  that  glorious  name 
Shakespeare  could  give.  This  fact  is  made 
manifest  for  in  "The  Actor's  Remonstrance" 
(1643),  is  contained  the  tarnishing  evidence 
of  the  admission  of  the  abuse  of  the  players' 
vocation,  and  should  be  read  when  we  are  dis- 
posed to  be  severe  upon  our  Puritan  ancestors 
for  their  dislike  of  the  common  players.  Why 
speak  of  the  most  intellectual  of  the  human 
race,  the  wonder  of  mankind,  in  the  same  terms 
as  of  the  other  actors  "when  their  social  posi- 
tion was  of  the  lowest."  Would  not  Cuthbert 
have  been  eager  to  say  in  his  petition  to  Lord 
Pembroke:  We  are  called  "the  basest  trade," 
vagabonds,  under  the  Act,  Eliz.  xxxlx? 
Nevertheless,  our  fellow  Shakspere  was  the 


232         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

author  of  the  Plays  contained  in  the  Great  Fo- 
lio edition,  published  in  1623.  Is  it  conceivable 
that  Cuthbert  Burbage,  if  he  positively  knew 
the  immortal  Plays  were  written  by  the  Strat- 
ford Player,  that  he  would  not  have  found 
tongue  to  say  on  this  occasion,  "with  cackle 
and  clatter,"  match  him  if  you  can.  Why 
classed  simply  with  a  batch  of  players  if 
Shakspere  was  "Shakespeare?" 

Was  it  not  because  he  (Cuthbert)  was 
aware  that  the  Lord  Chamberlain  knew  very 
well  that  none  of  the  men  players  named  in 
the  petition, — Hemings,  Candall,  Philips, 
Shakspere,  etc. — had  any  profession  but  that 
of  actor?  That  Shakspere  was  a  professional 
actor  we  know,  but  the  inference  from  Cuth- 
bert's  silence  is,  that  Shakespeare  was  not  a 
literary  gentleman  and  dramatist.  By  the 
owner  of  the  play  houses,  Shakspeare  is  placed 
on  the  same  footing  as  the  other  players,  and 
Cuthbert  Burbage  did  not,  in  telling  the  his- 
tory of  the  play  houses,  give  Lord  Pembroke, 
the  survivor  of  the  "incomparable  pair  of 
brethren,"  to  whom  the  Folio  was  dedicated, 
the  slightest  intimation  that  Shakspeare,  a 
"man  player,"  had  ever  been  a  dramatic  au- 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         233 

thor,  when  the  drama  formed  so  important  a 
part  of  the  literature  of  England. 

The  silence  of  Philip  Henslowe  is  also  very 
good  proof  of  anonymity  in  authorship.  The 
old  householder's  silence  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  Plays  were  not  of  certified  author- 
ship— bearing  no  name. 

Not  until  the  fourth  edition  did  the  name 
"Shakespeare"  appear  upon  the  title  page  of 
"Romeo  and  Juliet."  It  is  plain,  to  say  the 
least,  that  the  anonymous  aspect  predominates 
in  the  dramatic  literature  of  the  period,  but 
the  reticence  of  the  author  of  the  Works  now 
called  "Shakespeare,"  was  in  this  regard,  pe- 
culiar among  his  contemporaries. 

Inasmuch  as  the  same  titles  or  names  of  so 
many  plays  found  recorded  in  Henslowe's 
Diary  are  identical  with  those  of  the  Heminge 
and  Condall  list  in  the  Great  Folio,  they  are 
the  strongest  testimonials  we  have  that  this 
author  began  his  dramatic  career  by  writing 
plays  for  Henslowe  as  an  anonymous  writer, 
and  in  all  probability  continued  to  write  un- 
der his  pseudonym  "Shakespeare"  to  the  end 
of  his  dramatic  career. 

During  the  twelve  years  beginning  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1591,  Henslowe's  Diary  records  the 


234         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

titles  of  no  fewer  than  270  pieces  or  plays— 
a  new  play  about  every  eighteen  days.  How- 
ever, it  would  seem  that  Henslowe  and  Al- 
leyn  at  the  Rose  Theatre  had  knowledge  of 
the  "Works,"  for  the  Diary  or  notebook  of  the 
old  manager,  and  the  wardrobe  of  the  famous 
actor,  Edward  Alleyn,  attest.  But  of  the  au- 
thor, 'Shakespeare,"  they  knew  nothing — ab- 
solutely nothing,  about  him — the  Shakespear- 
ian drama,  and  no  shadow  of  a  real  name. 

Dr.  Furness,  expressing  his  disappointment, 
says:  "Where  the  names  of  nearly  all  the 
dramatic  poets  of  the  age  are  to  be  frequently 
found  we  might  certainly  count  on  finding  that 
of  Shakespeare,  but  the  shadows  in  which 
Shakespeare's  early  life  was  spent,  envelop 
him  here  too,  and  his  name,  as  Collier  says,  is 
not  met  with  in  any  part  of  the  manuscript." 

That  Shakspere  of  Stratford  had  lived  a 
literary  life,  whether  early  or  late,  and  was  en- 
veloped by  shadows  has  no  foundation  in  re- 
corded fact. 

The  negative  evidence  from  the  silence  of 
Philip  Henslowe,  I  repeat,  does  prove  that  the 
early  plays  called  "Shakespeare,"  bearing  no 
name,  were  of  unknown  authorship,  the  works 
of  a  reticent  writer — "The  Great  Unknown." 


SHAKESPEARE,  THE  LITERARY  ASPECT         235 

Silence  in  the  matter  of  authorship  is  the 
course  of  "a  concealed  poet." 

The  silence  of  Henslowe  and  Alleyn,  house- 
holders of  the  Rose  Theatre  early  in  Shaks- 
pere's  career,  coupled  with  the  silence  of  the 
Burbages,  householders  of  the  Globe  Theatre, 
does  evidence  anonymity  in  authorship. 

The  silence  of  John  Manningham,  barris- 
ter-at-law  of  the  Middle  Temple,  is  still  an- 
other instance  of  the  negative  pregnant,  who 
under  date  of  February  2,  1601,  records  the 
story  in  his  Diary  criminating  Shakspere's 
morals,  but  who  is  not  personally  remembered 
as  a  man  of  letters,  a  writer  of  plays,  no  hint  of 
the  undivided  personality  of  player  and  au- 
thor. 

Their  never-ceasing  silence  and  the  author's 
never-ceasing  reticence  is  a  fatal  breach  in  the 
claim  set  up  for  the  player — one  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford — to  the  personal  au- 
thorship of  the  Plays  called  by  his  name. 


One  comfort  is  that  great  men  taken 
up  in  any  way  are  profitable  company. 
\Ve  cannot  look,  however  imperfectly, 
upon  a  great  man  without  gaining  some- 
thing by  it.  He  is  the  living  fountain  of 
life,  which  it  is  pleasant  to  be  near.  On 
any  terms  whatsoever  you  will  not  grudge 
to  wander  in  his  neighborhood  for  a 
while.  Heroes  and  Hero-Worship. 


PART  IV 

SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND 
WITH   SOME  ACCOUNT  OF  SEV- 
ERAL ELIZABETHAN  AUTHORS 


f £<-*'. 
*-Z^J  *-.  /, 

4< 


HYMN  TO  CYNTHIA 

Queen  and  huntress,  chaste  and  fair, 
Now  the  sun  is  laid  to  sleep, 
Seated  in  thy  silver  chair, 
State  in  wonted  manner  keep: 
Hesperus  entreats  thy  light, 
Goddess,  excellently  bright. 
Earth,  let  not  thy  envious  shade 
Dare  itself  to  interpose; 
Cynthia's  shining  orb  was  made 
Heav'n  to  clear,  when  day  did  close: 
Bless  us,  then,  with  wished  sight, 
Goddess,  excellency  bright. 
Lay  thy  bow  of  pearl  apart, 
And  thy  crystal  shining  quiver; 
Give  unto  the  flying  hart 
Space  to  breathe,  how  short  soever: 
Thou  that  mak'st  a  day  of  night, 
Goddess,  excellently  bright. 

Ben  Jonson. 


BEN  JONSON  AND  SHAKESPEARE 

VIII. 

"HPHE    Mermaid"  —  "the    Apollo"  — the 
•*•    Club    room   of    "the    Devil" — is   here 
imaged  before  us. 

"Souls  of  Poets  dead  and  gone, 
What  Elysium  have  ye  known, 

Happy  field  or  mossy  Cavern 
Choicer  than  the  Mermaid  Tavern?" 

The  great  men  were  there, — Raleigh  and 
Spencer,  Drayton  and  Camden,  Chapman  and 
Shirley,  Selden  and  Field,  Webster  and  How- 
ell,  Hobbes  and  Ford,  Fletcher  and  the  lion- 
in-chief,— "Rare  Ben." 
—"I  lye  and  dreamed  of  your  full  Mermaid 
Wine,"  Francis  Beaumont — writing  from  the 
country  to  Ben  Jonson : 

"What  things  have  we  seen 

Done  at  the  Mermaid:  heard  words 

that  have  been 

So  nimble  and  so  full  of  subtle  flame, 
As  if  that  every  one  from  whence 

they  came 

241 


242         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Had  meant  to  put  his  whole  wit  in  a 

jest, 
And  had  resolved  to  live  a  fool  the 

rest 
Of  his  dull  life." 

In  those  stirring  times — rare  times  they 
were  of  indomitable  energy.  With  such  men 
for  his  contemporaries  Ben  Jonson  was  yet  a 
power  in  their  day,  and  in  the  age  in  which  we 
live  no  mocking  vision,  but  standing  forth  in 
sharpest  outline  after  the  literary  records  and 
personal  history  of  even  the  greatest  have 
faded. 

This  remarkable  man,  like  his  namesake  of 
a  later  generation,  was  coarsely  framed  as  his 
own  verse  tells  us:  "His  mountain-belly- and 
his  rocky  face,"  seamed  with  scars  of  disease; 
combative  and  prone  to  strange  imaginations 
and  peculiar  manifestations;  his  vast  influence 
on  his  own  generation;  the  superiority  of  rep- 
utation— great  as  a  writer  in  prose  as  well  as 
'in  verse;  the  deference  shown  the  leader  of 
this  great  literary  club.  No  wonder  Ben  is 
exacting  that  full  homage  which  he  believed 
should  be  shown  him,  the  acknowledged  lit- 
erary monarch  of  his  day  and  generation. 

Nevertheless,  Ben  Jonson  is  not  one  of  the 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  243 

writers  of  those  times  whose  works  are  the 
studies  of  the  aftertime,  notwithstanding  Ben 
is  more  intimately  known  to  posterity  than  any 
of  the  brotherhood  of  poets  contemporaneous 
with  him.  Judged  by  the  standard  of  con- 
temporaneous work  Chapman's  "Homer"  had 
won  a  more  enduring  fame.  In  imagination 
I  can  see  him  walking  up  and  down  in  the 
club  room,  his  hands  thrust  into  the  two  lateral 
pockets  of  an  old  coachman's  coat,  inflamed  by 
strong  drink  and  the  recrimination  of  Dekker 
and  Marston.  Ben  never  would  let  "sleeping 
dogs  rest." 

However,  Ben  Jonson  would  have  been 
more  thoroughly  known  to  posterity  had  there 
been  a  Boswell  at  his  elbow  to  report  the 
Table-Talk.  A  similarity  of  conduct  may  be 
traced  in  Ben  and  his  equally  famous  name- 
sake, the  Lexicographer,  but  asking  questions 
was  not  then  all  the  rage.  In  fact,  the  only 
chronic  interviewer  in  Ben  Jonson's  day  was 
the  Scotch  poet,  Drummond  of  Hawthornden, 
who  lived  in  a  handsome  home  set  above  the 
charming  valley  of  Eskdale,  far  from  the 
Mermaid  Tavern.  But  then  there  was  James 
Howell  who  lived  in  London,  an  inveterate 
note  taker  and  letter  writer,  who  was  usually 


244         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

on  the  scent  for  suppers  at  the  Apollo,  and 
could  have  reported  Ben's  table  talk  but  un- 
fortunately did  not.  In  a  letter  dated  from 
Westminster,  April  5,  1636,  James  Howell 
describes  a  solemn  supper  given  by  Ben  Jon- 
son,  at  which  he  and  Thomas  Carew  were 
present.  This  letter  to  Thomas  Hawkins  is 
evidence  of  the  fact  that  Ben's  utterances  were 
veraciously  reported  by  the  Scotch  poet  in  his 
notes,  "Conversations  of  Ben  Jonson  in  1619," 
where  reference  is  made  to  Ben's  display  of 
self-worship  and  vilification  of  his  brother 
poets,  and  also  of  the  truth  and  justice  of  the 
criticism  as  resting  on  Ben's  competency  and 
credibility  as  a  witness. 

Howell  writes:  "I  was  invited  yesternight 
to  a  solemn  supper  by  B.  J.  whom  you  deeply 
remember.  There  was  good  company  excel- 
lent Cheer  Choise  wines  and  jovial  welcome 
One  thing  intervened  which  almost  Spoiled 
the  relish  of  the  rest  Ben  began  to  engross  all 
the  discourse  to  Vapour  extremely  of  himself 
and  by  vilifying  others  to  magnify  his  own 
muse  Thomas  Carew  buzzed  me  in  the  ear 
that  Ben  had  barreled  up  a  great  deal  of 
Knowledge  yet  seeme  he  had  not  read  the 
'Etheques'  which  among  other  precepts  of 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTERMIND  245 

morality  forbid  Self-commendation  But  for 
my  part  I  am  content  to  dispense  with  this 
Roman  infirmity  of  B's  now  that  time  has 
snowed  upon  his  pericranium." 

However,  we  know  Ben  pretty  much  as  he 
was  known  to  the  men  of  his  own  generation. 
The  remarkable  record  of  his  sayings,  re- 
ported by  William  Drummond,  the  Laird  of 
Hawthornden,  in  1619,  when  honored  with  a 
visit  from  the  great  literary  dictator  of  the 
time, — "great  lover  and  praiser  of  himself, 
contemner  and  scorner  of  others." 

The  Drummond  notes  show  Ben  Jonson  to 
be  a  person  of  rather  doubtful  veracity,  one 
whose  testimony  we  view  with  suspicion  or  re- 
ject altogether.  And  this  is  the  witness  whom 
the  Stratfordians  chiefly  depend  upon  as  the 
attestor  for  the  works  which  are  associated 
with  the  Stratford  actor's  name.  The  Strat- 
fordians say — or  one  of  them,  a  sylogizer,  has 
said — if  Shakspere  of  Stratford  was  not  the 
true  author  of  the  works  of  Shakespeare,  then 
Jonson  was  a  liar.  Jonson  could  not  have  been 
a  liar.  Therefore,  etc.,  the  critics  cannot  per- 
cieve  the  difference  between  proof  and  opin- 
ion. By  the  way,  the  opinion  of  the  most  skil- 
ful critics  is,  that  the  great  unknown  writer 


246         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

(Junius),  who  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years 
has  been  the  subject  of  the  closest  scrutiny, 
cannot  be  identified  "Stat  nominis  umbra!' 

Edmund  Burke  was  generally  supposed  to 
be  Junius  while  the  letters  were  issuing  from 
the  press.  Dr.  Kelly  of  Finsbury  Square, 
published  a  tract  in  order  to  prove  that  Burke 
was  the  author  of  Junius.  So  may  we  not  as 
glibly  syllogize  also  without  any  real  knowl- 
edge of  the  identity  of  Junius.  Thus,  if  Burke 
was  not  the  true  author  of  the  Junius  letters 
then  Dr.  Kelly  was  a  liar.  Dr.  Kelly  could 
not  have  been  a  liar.  Therefore,  etc. 

However,  we  now  know  that  Burke  did  not 
write  the  celebrated  letters.  Junius  is  no<w 
classed  under  a  pseudonym.  Lies  framed  un- 
consciously do  not  criminate  the  utterer  of 
them. 

The  present  writer  having  read  all  Ben 
Jonson's  hyperbolical  utterances  in  prose,  all 
Ben's  panegyrics  in  verse,  and  the  whole  of 
his  conversations  with  Drummond,  is  con- 
vinced that  Ben  is  unreliable  and  is  therefore 
not  competent  to  confirm  by  his  testimony  the 
Stratfordian  authorship  (so-called).  Persons 
who  are  unable  to  tell  the  truth,  even  when 
there  is  no  reason  for  falsification,  are,  in  the 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  247 

parlance  of  alienists,  termed  "mythomaniacs," 
"which  in  the  adult  is  always  the  indication  of 
a  diseased  condition,  or  at  least  of  a  certain 
amount  of  mental  disturbance."  The  study  of 
mythomania  and  of  its  various  stages,  shows 
us  how  untrustworthy  Ben  Jonson's  testimony 
is.  Mythomania  in  Ben  usually  takes  the  form 
of  vain-glorious  boasting  or  of  self-glorifica- 
tion. But  as  the  Drummond  notes  attest,  Ben's 
mythomaniac  activity  appears  in  accusation  of 
brother-poets  as  calumny — detraction — vilifi- 
cation and  defamation,  framed  unconsciously, 
not  wilful  or  perverse  falsehood.  Ben  Jon- 
son  is  also  overflowing  and  hearty  in  his  com- 
mendation, shown  in  his  readiness  to  congrat- 
ulate and  of  excess  in  sympathy.  But  Ben's 
compliments  are  to  be  regarded  with  suspic- 
ion; in  their  converse  lie  more  nearly  the  true 
state  of  his  mind,  "especially  after  drink 
which  is  one  of  the  elements  in  which  he  liv- 
eth." 

Dr.  Samuel  Johnson's  thoughts  in  reference 
to  wine  bibbing  are  not  opprobious  to  his  bi- 
bacious  name-sake,  at  least  not  intentionally 
so.  "The  maxim  in  vino  veritas,  a  man  who  is 
well  warmed  with  wine  will  speak  truth — may 
be  an  argument  for  drinking  if  you  suppose 


248         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

men  in  general  to  be  liars  Sir  I  would  not  keep 
company  with  a  fellow  who  lies  as  long  as  he 
is  sober  and  whom  you  must  make  drunk  be- 
tore  you  can  get  a  word  of  truth  out  of  him." 

However,  Ben  Jonson  was  well  received  at 
Hawthornden.  On  his  approach  Drummond 
shouts:  "Welcome,  welcome,  royal  Ben!"  to 
which  he  immediately  replied:  "Thank  ye, 
thank  ye,  Hawthornden."  Knowing  what  Ben 
was  he  must  have  had  a  Bacchic  time,  assum- 
ing, of  course,  that  he  brought  his  Tavern  hab- 
its with  him  and  that  Scotchmen,  like  Ken- 
tuckians,  take  their  whiskey  straight.  The 
sort  which  inspired  Ben,  according  to  one  of 
Ben's  "Sons"  at  the  "Devil."  With  some  al- 
teration we  read: 

How  could  the  conversations 

heat  and  vigour  lack, 
When  each  sentence  cost  his  host 

a  cup  of  sack? 

Ben  Jonson  sojourned  with  Drummond 
about  three  weeks.  He  bade  him  a  most  af- 
fectionate farewell,  but  forthwith  wrote,— 
"Oppressed  with  phantasy  which  hath  ever 
mastered  his  (Jonson's)  reason  a  general  dis- 
ease in  many  poets." 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTERMIND  249 

Ben  Jonson's  panegyric  verse  and  carping 
utterances  in  the  opinion  of  the  stalwart  cham- 
pions of  conventional  errors,  lies  the  cogency 
of  the  "Stratfordian"  case,  and  assert  that 
"Rare  Ben"  is  the  Colossus  of  their  faith. 

We  will  now  endeavor  to  concentrate  the 
interest  of  the  reader  chiefly  in  the  attestation 
of  Ben  Jonson  for  the  works  which  are  asso- 
ciated with  the  name  of  "Shakespeare."  It  is 
not  pretended  that  the  play  actor,  William 
Shakspere  made  any  claim  to  the  works  called 
"Shakespeare"  but  is  taken  to  be  claimant  by 
some  persons,  who  in  the  fullness  of  their  de- 
sire to  sustain  a  fictitious  character,  have  re- 
course to  fictitious  biography,  well  stocked 
with  fanciful  "maybes"  and  "might-have- 
beens"  and  "could-have  beens"  and  "must- 
have-beens"  and  the  conventional  nonsense  us- 
ually apropriated  to  a  life  of  "Shakespeare." 

Ben  Jonson  was  born  in  Westminster,  Eng- 
land, in  1572  or  1573  and  was  the  son  of  a 
clergyman.  Regardless  of  poverty,  he  was 
educated  at  Westminster  School.  William 
Camden,  antiquary  and  historian,  was  his  in- 
structor and  benefactor  "most  reverend  head." 
Ben  seems  not  to  have  gone  to  either  univer- 
sity, notwithstanding  he  later  received  degrees 


250        SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

from  Oxford  and  Cambridge.  He  served  as 
a  soldier  in  Flanders,  where  he  distinguished 
himself  by  killing  one  of  the  enemy  in  single 
combat,  but  had  a  narrow  escape  in  1598  from 
the  gallows  for  killing  an  actor  in  a  duel,  one 
Gabriel  Spencer  belonging  to  Henslowe's 
company. 

John  Aubrey  of  scandalmongery  fame  in 
whose  brain  everything  is  confusion,  in  re- 
cording the  event,  says,  he  (Ben  Jonson) 
killed  "Mr.  Marlowe,  the  poet,  on  Bunhill, 
coming  from  the  Green  Curtain  playhouse;" 
but  the  fact  is,  Marlowe,  "whose  memory  Jon- 
son  held  in  high  esteem,  met  his  untimely 
death  in  1593  in  a  tavern  quarrel  at  Deptford, 
five  years  before  this  period.  Marlowe  was 
slain  by  Francis  Archer,  a  serving  man.  So 
Aubrey  has  muddled  the  whole  affair  as  usual. 

Writers  on  the  subject  of  Jonson  and  Shake- 
speare say  that  we  have  abundant  tradition  of 
their  close  friendship.  There  are  no  credible 
traditions  of  their  close  friendship.  The  man- 
ufactured traditions  so  conspicuous  in  books 
called  "A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare"  are 
the  dreams  of  fancy,  fraud  and  fiction. 

Notwithstanding  it  was  the  custom  amongst 
literary  men  of  the  day  to  belaud  their  friends 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  251 

in  verse  or  prose  Shakespeare  in  the  lifetime 
of  the  Stratford  player,  was  honored  with  no 
mark. of  Ben  Jonson's  admiration  or  friend- 
ship. Not  a  single  line  of  commendatory 
verse  was  addressed  to  "Shakespeare"  by  Jon- 
son,  although  so  lavishly  bestowed  as  to  in- 
clude almost  every  notable  in  literature  and 
.public  life,  .In  fact,  what  shrimp  was  there 
among  hack  writers  who  could  not  gain  a 
panegyric  from  his  generous  tongue? 

The  proven  facts  of  the  Stratford  player's 
(Shakspere)  life  are  facts  unassociated  with 
authorcraft;  facts  that  prove  the  isolation  and 
divorcement  of  player  and  poet.  The  proven 
facts  of  Ben  Jonson's  life  are  facts  interlac- 
ing man  and  poet.  Almost  every  incident  in 
his  life  reveal  his  personal  affection  or  bitter 
dislike  for  his  fellow  poets;  always  ready  for 
a  quarrel,  arrogant,  conceited,  boastful  and 
vulgar.  There  is  much  truth  in  Dekker's 
charge:  "Tis  thy  fashion  to  flirt  ink  in  every 
man's  face  and  then  crawl  into  his  bosom.  Jon- 
son  maintained  that  he  had  liberty  and  license 
to  commend  himself  and  abuse  his  comrades, 
but  if  they  commended  themselves,  this  was 
inflation,  or  if  they  abused  him,  this  was  de- 
traction." 


252         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Nevertheless,  there  was  community  of 
friendship  always.  He  was  federated  in  a 
comedy  "Eastward  Ho"  with  Chapman  and 
Marston,  and  was  sent  to  prison  with  Chap- 
man. (Marston,  the  real  offender,  beat  a  re- 
treat), on  complaint  of  Sir  James  Murray,  a 
northern  carpet  bagger  of  Scottish  birth,  new- 
ly knighted.  The  satire  on  the  needy  Scots  is 
contained  in  the  words  "Who  indeed  are  dis- 
persed over  the  face  of  the  earth" — and  the 
wish  that  a  hundred  thousand  of  them  were  in 
Virginia,  where  "we  should  find  ten  times 
more  comfort  of  them  there  than  we  doe 
here." 

Ben  Jonson's  letter  relating  to  the  misfor- 
tunes of  the  poets  in  the  matter  of  Eastward 
Hoe: 
Excellentest  of  Ladies  (Countess  of  Rutland), 

And  most  honard  of  the  Graces,  Muses, 
and  me;  if  it  be  not  a  sinn  to  profane 
your  free  hand  with  prison  polluted  paper,  I 
wolde  entreate  some  little  of  youre  ayde  to  the 
defence  of  my  innocence  which  is  as  clean  as 
this  leaf  was  (before  I  stained  it)  of  anything 
halfe-worthye  of  this  violent  infliction.  I  am 
commytted  and  with  me  a  worthy  Friend  one 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  253 

Mr.  (George)  Chapman,  a  man  I  cannot  say 
how  known  to  your  Ladishipp  but  I  am  sure 
known  to  me  to  honor  you:  and  Our  offence  a 
Play  so  mistaken  so  misconstrued,  as  I  do  won- 
der whether  this  ignorance  or  impudence  be 
most,  who  are  our  adversaries.  It  is  now  not 
disputable  for  we  stand  on  uneven  basis,  and 
am  course  so  unequally  carried,  as  we  are 
without  examining,  without  hearing,  or  with- 
out any  proofe  but  malicious  Rumor,  horried 
to  bondage  and  fetters;  The  cause  we  un- 
derstand to  be  the  King's  indignation  for 
which  we  are  hartelye  sorie,  and  the  more  by 
how  much  the  less  we  have  deserv'd  it.  What 
our  Sute  is,  the  worthy  employd  Soliciter  and 
equall  Adores  of  your  Vertues  can  best  inform 
you.  BEN  JONSON 

After  their  release,  unharmed,  Ben  Jonson 
"banqueted  all  his  friends"  among  them  Cam- 
den  and  Selden,  also  Ben's  old  Spartan  moth- 
er, who  it  seems  credited  the  report  that  her 
famous  son  was  in  imminent  danger  of  hav- 
ing his  nostrils  slit  or  at  least  his  ears  lopped; 
"drank  to  him  and  shew  him  a  paper  which 
she  had  (if  the  sentence  had  taken  execution) 
to  have  mixed  in  the  prison  among  his  drink, 
which  was  full  of  lustic  strong  poison,  and 


254         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

that  she  was  no  churle,  she  told  she  minded -to 
have  drunk  of  it  herself." 

Ben  Jonson's  personality  and  literary  work 
are  inseparable.  Drunk  or  sober,  few  have 
served  learning  with  so  much  pertinacity,  and 
fewer  still  have  so  successfully  challenged  ad- 
miration even  from  literary  rivals,  with  whom 
at  times  he  was  most  bitterly  hostile,  and  at 
other  times  indisputably  open-handed  and 
jovial. 

Ben  Jonson  had  a  literary  environment  al- 
ways, for  there  is  perfect  interlacement  of  man 
and  craft.  He  became  one  of  the  most  pro- 
lific writers  of  his  age,  occupying  among  the 
lettered  men  of  his  day  a  position  of  literary 
supremacy. 

'His  was  a  commanding  personality,  affili- 
ated into  courtly  and  public  life.  In  the  forty 
years  of  his  literary  career,  he  collected  a  li- 
brary so  extensive  that  Gifford  doubted  wheth- 
er any  library  "in  England  was  so  rich  in  " 
scarce  and  valuable  books." 

From  the  pages  of  Isaac  Disraeli,  we  read 
"No  poet  has  left  behind  him  so  many  testi- 
monials of  personal  fondness  by  inscriptions 
and  addresses  in  the  copies  of  his  works  which 
he  presented  to  his  friends." 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  255 

Notwithstanding  the  depletion  of  his  col- 
lection of  books  by  forced  sales,  and  the  burn- 
ing of  his  library  between  the  years  1621-22 
which  also  prove  that  poverty  stricken  Jonson 
had  books  and  manuscripts  to  burn  while  the 
rich  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford  is  not 
known  to  have  had  anything  of  a  literary  des- 
cription to  burn,  give  away  or  bequeath. 

But  strange  as  it  must  seem  to  the  votaries 
of  "Shakespeare"  not  a  single  copy  of  Jon* 
son's  works  or  testimonials  is  brought  forward 
to  bear  witness  to  his  personal  regard  and  ad- 
miration, for  Shakespeare  before  the  Strat- 
ford player's  death  in  1616;  and  we  may  add 
that  there  is  no  testimonial  by  Shakespeare  of 
his  regard  and  personal  fondness  for  Ben  Jon- 
son,  although  many  of  the  literary  antiquari- 
ans have  unearthed  in  their  researches,  facts 
and  discoveries  which  they  have  brought  for- 
ward as  new  particulars  of  the  life  of  William 
Shakspere,  the  Stratford  player.  This,  if  not 
incompatible  with  authorship  is  surely  divorc- 
ing Shakspere  the  actor  from  "Shakespeare" 
the  author  of  the  plays.  They  but  deepen  the 
mystery  that  surrounds  the  personality  of  the 
author,  "The  shadow  of  a  mighty  name." 

But  at  the  same  time  they  disclose  the  true 


256         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

character  of  Shakspere  the  actor,  match  mak- 
er, land  owner,  money  lender  and  litigant, 
which  is  affirmative  of  John  B  right's  opinion, 
that  "any  man  who  believes  that  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford  wrote  Hamlet  or  Lear 
is  a  fool."  The  words  of  the  great  orator  are 
not  emulative  of  the  highest  civility,  but  in- 
stead the  controversial  "sweetmeats"  such  as 
liar,  loony,  and  of  the  like  kind  of  honey-ton- 
gued  names  of  endearment  then  in  vogue. 

The  student  reader  will  perceive  that  Jon- 
son's  verse  does  not  agree  with  his  prose  and 
that  his  "Ode  to  Shakespeare"  which  Dryden 
called  "an  insolent,  sparing  and  invidious 
panegyric"  was  not  the  final  word  of  com- 
ment, which  is  contained  in  Ben  Jonson's 
"Discoveries"  (manuscript  book)  a  prose  ref- 
erence in  disparagement  of  the  man  whom  he 
may  have  believed  was  identifiable  with  the 
playwright.  We  believe  he  was  mistaken  in 
so  believing. 

When  Ben  is  least  variable  and  most  con- 
stant as  in  the  three  references  to  Shakespeare, 
to  Drummond  of  Hawthornden  in  1619,  in 
1623  in  Commendatory  verses  to  the  folio;  in 
his  manuscript  book  "Discoveries"  from  1630- 
1635,  he  seems  to  have  had  no  information  in 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  257 

the  subject  as  by  observance,  by  reading,  by 
study  or  in  conversation  with  lettered  persons 
about  the  author  of  the  plays  "Shakespeare.1' 

An  overweening  admiration  and  supreme 
regard  for  self  made  Ben  an  easy  victim  of 
dupery  or  gullery.  Was  he  hoaxed  by  the 
players?  Ben  Jonson  was  vulnerable  most  in 
his  character  as  a  witness.  The  reader  will 
therefore  be  indulgent  if  we  make  some  re- 
mark upon  the  credibility  and  competency  of 
this  witness.  The  elder  writers  on  the  subject 
of  Jonson  and  Shakespeare  before  Gifford's 
time  (1757-1826)  were  always  harping  on 
Ben  Jonson's  envy  and  jealously  of  Shake- 
speare. 

Since  Gifford's  day  the  antiquary  has  been 
abroad  in  the  land  without  having  discovered 
anything  of  a  literary  life  of  the  play  actor, 
Shakspere,  and  as  if  by  general  consent,  all  re- 
cent writers  on  the  subject  regard  Ben  Jon- 
son's  attestation  or  his  metrical  tribute  "To 
the  memory  of  my  beloved,  the  author,  Mr. 
William  Shakespeare,  and  what  he  hath  left 
us,"  as  an  essential  element  in  his  biography — 
the  title  deed  of  authorship.  Having  made 
him  their  star  witness  we  should  hear  no  more 
of  Jonson's  jealousy  and  envy  of  Shakespeare. 


258         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL,  PHASE 

However,  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  and  Mr.  J, 
M.  Robertson  follow  the  elder  writers,  whose 
pace  was  set  by  Ben  Jonson's  caveling  words, 
"And  though  thou  hadst  small  Latin  and  less 
Greek,"  are  harping  still  upon  Ben's  jealous 
rage,  for  whenever  the  statements  of  Ben  Jon- 
son  upon  whom  the  Stratfordians  chiefly  reply- 
are  not  suitable  to  their  belief  in  the  Stratford 
delusion,  he  is  to  be  discredited,  and  therefore 
Ben  is  straightway  denounced  as  an  angry 
rival  actuated  by  jealous  spite. 

But  remembering  Ben  Jonson's  metrical 
panegyrics  in  the  folio  of  1623  which  he  wrote 
for  the  syndicate  of  publishers — straws,  which 
like  drowning  men  they  frantically  catch  at, 
which  they  imagine  will  buoy  up.  The  up- 
holders of  the  Stratford  delusion  will  surely 
cling  to  Ben,  for  they  say  he  never  varies  from 
his  identification  of  Shakspere  the  Stratford 
player  with  "Shakespeare"  the  author  of  the 
plays.  Now  we  take  all  this  for  granted. 
What  then  are  we  constrained  by  this  opinion 
from  the  settled  belief  that  the  moody  Ben  was 
deceived  or  mistaken? 

Abraham  Lincoln  says,  "You  can  fool  all 
the  people  some  of  the  time,"  and  Ben  seems 
to  have  been  among  the  number  fooled,  "and 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTERrMIND  259 

some  of  the  people"  (Stratfordians)  "all  of 
the  time,  but  you  cannot  fool  all  of  the  people 
all  of  the  time." 

Now  we  think  that  Ben  Jonson  really  did 
not  know  enough  about  "Shakespeare"  he 
having  no  settled  judgment  in  regard  to  any 
point,  mere  deduction  drawn  from  hearsay, 
tattle  of  gossiping  players,  themselves  be- 
fooled as  is  disclosed  by  his  conversations  with 
Drummond  of  Hawthorndon  in  1619,  when 
he  said  that  "Shakespeare"  "Wanted  art"  and 
also  in  his  posthumously  published  Discov- 
eries he  writes  "Many  times  he  (Shake- 
speare) fell  into  those  things,  could  not  escape 
laughter,  as  when  he  said  in  the  person  of  Cae- 
sar, one  speaking  to  him,  Caesar  thou  dost  me 
wrong,  he  replied  Caesar  did  never  wrong  but 
with  just  cause,  which  was  ridiculous." 

Again  in  1623  in  commendatory  verses  to 
the  folio  which  he  wrote  for  the  syndicate  of 
printers  and  publishers  with  an  eye  to  the  sale 
of  the  book  and,  of  course,  will  not  repeat 
what  he  said  to  Drummond  in  1619,  that 
Shakespeare  lacked  art,  and  so  Ben  in  his  hy- 
perbolical poem  gave  Shakespeare  plenty  of 
it  "well  turned  and  true  filled  lines."  But  in 
cold,  passionless  prose  at  a  later  date,  he  is  to 


260         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

express  the  wish  "would  he  had  blotted  out  a 
thousand  (lines)." 

King  George  III  gave  concurrence  to  this 
opinion  for  His  Majesty  tells  us  that  "a  great 
deal  of  Shakespeare  is  sad  stuff,  only  one  must 
not  say  so."  His  Majesty,  it  seems,  was  not 
aware  that  the  work  of  "Shakespeare"  had 
been  interpolated  by  wanton  players  and 
botched  by  collaborating  authors,  and  that  the 
work  of  others  had  been  appropriated  by 
Shakespeare.  So  then  these  intruders  coupled 
With  the  older  authors'  inferior  hand  is  held 
responsible  for  all  of  the  "sad  stuff"  contained 
in  the  thousand  lines  referred  to  according  to 
Shakespearean  commentators. 

Mr.  James  R.  Lowell  in  an  address  on 
Shakespeare's  'Richard  III'  which  contained 
his  doubts  about  the  authorship  of  the  drama, 
the  result  of  his  examination  indicated  that  at 
least  two  different  hands  had  been  engaged  in 
the  making  of  'Richard  III,'  a  play  he  said, 
'which  "Shakespeare"  adapted  to  the  stage, 
and  proceeds  to  assign  all  the  "sad  stuff"  as 
unblotted  lines,  lack  of  art  to  the  older  author, 
whoever  he  was,  for  said  he  "I  believe  it  abso- 
lutely safe  to  say  of  Shakespeare  that  he  never 
wrote  deliberate  nonsense." 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTERrMIND  261 

Ben  Jonson  in  his  remarks  "Of  Shake- 
speare, our  fellow  country-man"  and  his  com- 
mendation by  the  actors  wrote,  "I  remember 
the  players  have  often  mentioned  it  as  an  hon- 
or to  Shakespeare  that  (whatsoever  he  pen- 
ned) he  never  blotted  out  a  line.  My  answer 
hath  been  Would  he  had  blotted  a  thousand' 
which  they  thought  a  malevolent  speech.  I 
had  not  told  posterity  this,  but  for  their  ignor- 
ance who  choose  that  circumstance  to  com- 
mend their  friend  by  (that)  wherein  he  most 
faulted." 

We  know  that  this  statement  by  the  players 
"that  in  his  writings  (whatsoever  he  penned) 
he,  Shakespeare,  never  blotted  a  line,"  is 
moonshine  and  proves  that  the  players  had  not 
access  to  the  author's  manuscript — his  orig- 
inal draft;  what  they  received  were  merely 
fair  copies  in  the  handwriting  of  their  yoke- 
fellow, Will  Shakspere,  play  house  copyist  or 
transcriber,  thus  befooling  the  players  with 
his  gullish  waggery. 

However,  Ben  Jonson  could  not  have  fore- 
seen that  Shakespeare's  self-constituted  liter- 
ary executors  of  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth 
centuries  would  have  blotted  out  not  only  a 
thousand  lines  but  many  thousands,  and  would 


262         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

decree  that  only  the  best  part  of  his  reputed 
works  should  come  down  to  the  latest  ages. 

In  the  early  years  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury the  name  "Shakespeare"  was  shadowy, 
the  plays  variable.  No  one  laid  any  claim  to 
\them  on  their  first  appearance,  but  in  a  subse- 
quent time  by  the  mere  fiction  of  a  name,  an 
actor  (a  vagabond  under  the  Act)  is  taken  to 
be  claimant.  "Shakespeare"  in  Ben  Jonson's 
day  held  a  title  page  proprietorship  in  as 
many  as  sixty-four  plays  and  Ben  did  not 
know  (doubtless)  they  were  not  wholly  his 
own. 

"The  Yorkshire  Tragedy"  to  give  as  an  in- 
stance, was  in  Ben  Jonson's  earlier  years  as 
well  authenticated  as  was  "Hamlet,"  "The 
Puritan,"  as  was  "Lear." 

The  same  is  true  of  the  unlisted  plays  which 
we  now  call  "the  doubtful  plays"  contained  in 
the  third  folio  edition  of  the  Shakespeare 
plays  in  1663-4.  William  Shakspere  the  Strat- 
ford player  never  used  the  hyphen  Shak-Spere 
or  an  E  in  the  first  syllable  of  his  name  or  an 
A  in  the  last.  Now  as  every  one  knows  the 
only  specimens  of  his  handwriting  that  we 
possess  are  the  six  signatures.  In  none  of  them 
does  the  Stratford  player  recognize  the  liter- 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  263 

ary  form  of  the  name  Shake-Speare  and 
Shakespeare.  So  far  as  any  one  knows  his  yoke 
fellows  never  spelled  their  names  on  this  wise : 
Burb — age.  Con — dell. 

We  find  that  the  plays  were  issuing  from 
the  press  anonymously;  for  example,  the  old 
edition  of  "Romeo  and  Juliet"  do  not  bear  the 
name  "Shakespeare"  until  after  1609,  and 
then  in  a  way  which  strongly  suggests  its  use 
as  a  pseudonym  for  the  name  is  hyphenated 
thus,  Shake-Speare  on  the  title  page.  The  copy 
in  the  British  Museum  is  without  Shake - 
Spere's  name.  It  is  found  only  in  early  copies 
of  the  edition,  having  been  suppressed  before 
the  rest  were  printed.  According  to  Halli- 
well-Phillipps  the  name  "Shake-Speare"  was 
so  spelled  on  the  title  page  of  the  earliest 
known  edition  of  "Hamlet"  also  in  the  1609 
edition  of  "The  Sonnets." 

The  early  and  frequent  appearance  of  a  sig- 
nature on  the  title  page  with  a  hyphen  would 
be  understood  doubtless  at  once  as  a  pseudo- 
nym, work  thus  produced  under  an  assumed 
or  fictitious  name,  for  real  genuine  names 
were  not  spelled  with  a  hyphen.  But  Shake- 
Speare  a  mask  name  often  was  so  spelled,  but 
so  far  as  anybody  knows,  not  one  of  the  family 


264         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

of  dramatic  poets  was  a  hyphen  used  in  spell- 
ing his  name.  Who  ever  saw  the  like  of  this? 
Mar-lowe,  Dray-ton,  Jon-son  and  Web-ster. 
The  word  "Shakespeare"  has  been  gradually 
formed  during  successive  generations  and  ren- 
dered venerable  by  the  act  of  adoration. 

But  an  ultimate  reflection  will  make  clear 
how  little  Ben  Jonson  is  to  be  depended  upon 
as  attesting  the  liability  of  the  Stratford  play- 
er, for  the  works  which  were  affiliated  with 
his  name  seven  years  after  his  death.  There 
is  not  a  word  or  sentence  in  all  Jonson's  writ- 
ings which  bear  witness  to  Shakespeare  as  a 
writer  of  plays  or  poems  anterior  to  the  Strat- 
ford player's  death  in  1616,  as  all  reference  to 
Shakespeare  in  Jonson's  verse  and  prose  are 
posterior  to  this  event. 

"Notes  of  Ben  Jonson's  conversations"  re- 
corded by  William  Drummond  of  Hawthorn- 
den  are  of  great  literary  and  historical  valu< 
and  are  important  also  as  bearing  on  Ben  Jon- 
son's  competency  and  credibleness  as  a  wit- 
ness. The  Drummond  notes  were  first  printed 
by  Mr.  David  Lang,  who  discovered  them 
among  the  manuscripts  of  Sir  Robert  Sibbald, 
a  well  known  antiquary.  "Conversations"  as 
we  have  it  on  the  evidence  of  Drummond  is  in 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  265 

accord  with  almost. every  contemporary  refer- 
ence to  Jonson  and  internally  they  chime  with 
Ben's  own  manuscript  book  "Discoveries." 

There  should  be  no  controversy  in  regard 
to  the  justice  of  the  Scottish  poets'  criticism  as 
recorded  by  Drummond,  we  learn  "He  (Ben 
Jonson)  is  a  great  lover  and  praiser  of  him- 
self, a  condemner  and  scorner  of  others,  espec- 
ially after  drink,  which  is  one  of  the  elements 
in  which  he  liveth." 

The  conversation  noted  by  Drummond 
took  place  when  Jonson  visited  him  at  Haw- 
thornden  in  1618-19  and  disclose  the  fact  that 
"Rare  Ben"  was  a  vulgar,  boastful,  tipsy 
backbiter  who  blackguarded  many  of  his  fel- 
low-poets. 

Conversations  in  part  from  the  notes  re- 
corded by  William  Drummond,  Laird  of 
'Hawthorndon. 

"He,  Ben  Jonson,  is  passionately  kind  and 
angry,  careless  either  to  gain  or  keep  vindica- 
tive, but  if  he  be  well  answered  at  himself 
interprets  best  sayings  and  deeds  often  to  the 
worst;  a  dissembler  of  the  parts  which  reign 
in  him,  a  bragger  of  some  good  that  he 
wanted,  thinketh  nothing  well  done  but  what 
either  he  himself  or  some  of  his  friends  have 


266         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

said  or  done.  He  was  for  any  religion  as  be- 
ing versed  in  both." 

"His  (Ben  Jonson)  censure  of  the 'English 
poets  was  this:  That  Sidney  did  not  keep  a 
decorum  in  making  every  one  speak  as  well 
as  himself ;  Spencer's  stanza  pleased  him  not 
nor  his  matter.  Samuel  Daniel  was  a  good 
honest  man,  had  no  children,  and  was  no  poet 
and  that  he  had  wrote  the  "Civil  Wars"  and 
yet  had  not  one  battle  in  all  his  book  and 
was  jealous  of  him. 

That  Michael  Drayton's  verses  pleased 
'him  not.  Drayton  feared  ;him  and  he  es- 
teemed not  of 'him  that  Donne  "Anniversary" 
was  profane  and  full  of  blasphemies  .  .  . 
that  Donne  for  not  keeping  to  accent  deserved 
hanging. 

Day  Ddkker  and  Minshew  were  all 
rogues;  that  Abram  Francis  in  his  English 
hexameters  was  a  fool.  He  said  Shakespeare 
wanted  art,  in  one  of  his  plays  he  brought  in 
a  number  of  men,  saying  they  had  suffered 
shipwreck  in  Bohemia  where  there  is  no  sea 
near  by  a  hundred  miles. 

That  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  esteemed  more 
fame  than  conscience.  The  best  wits  in  Eng- 
land were  employed  in  making  his  history;  he 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  267 

himself  had  written  a  piece  to  him  of  the 
Punick  War  which  he  atlered  and  set  in  his 
book. 

That  Chapman  and  Fletcher  were  loved  of 
him.  Sir  Henry  Watton's  verses  of  a  "Happy 
Life"  he  hath  by  heart  and  a  piece  of  Chap- 
man's Translation  of  Homer's  Iliad  (Book 
XIII).  That  next  to  himself  only  Fletcher 
and  Chapman  could  make  a  masque.  He 
esteemeth  John  Donne  the  first  poet  in  the 
world  in  some  things;  that  Donne  himself 
for  not  being  understood  would  perish. 

That  Francis  Beaumont  loved  too  much 
himself  and  his  own  verse. 

He  had  many  quarrels  with  Marston,  that 
Gervase  Markham  was  not  of  the  number  of 
the  faithful,  and  but  a  base  fellow;  that  such 
were  Day  and  Middleton;  Spencer  died  for 
lack  of  bread  in  King  Street. 

That  the  King  said  Sir  Philip  Sidney  was 
no  poet,  neither  did  he  see  any  verses  in  Eng- 
land to  the  scullers." 

According  to  Ben  Jonson,  His  Sacred 
Majesty,  James  the  First,  did  not  enjoy  the 
beauties  of  Sir  Philip  Sydney,  contained  in 
his  "Flowers  of  Poetry,"  but  was  diverted 
with  the  "Scullers"  (John  Taylor,  1580- 


268         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

1654,  water  poeticule)  which  title  he  owes 
to  his  occupation  on  the  river.  So  it  was  not 
"Shakespeare"  "that  so  did  take  Eliza  and 
our  James"  but  instead  a  mere  rhymester. 

However,  Sir  William  Alexander  (1567- 
1640)  later  Earl  of  Stirling,  grumbled  that 
James  I  prefers  his  own  (poetic  work)  to  all 
else. 

But,  continues  William  Drummond,  "the 
Father  of  interviewers,"  "sundry  times  he 
(Jonson)  hath  devoured  his  books,  sold  them 
all  for  necessity.  Of  all  his  plays  he  never 
gained  200  pounds;  that  the  half  of  his  come- 
dies were  not  in  print.  He  dissuaded  me 
(Drummond)  from  poetry,  for  that  she  had 
beggared  him,  when  he  might  have  been  a 
rich  lawyer,  physician  or  merchant." 

"An  Epigram"  on  the  "Court  Pucelle"  was 
stolen  out  of  his  pocket  by  a  gentleman  who 
drank  him  drowrsy.  He  had  many  quarrels 
!with  Marston,  beat  him  and  took  his  pistol 
from  him.  He  said  to  Prince  Charles  of 
Inigo  Jones  that  when  he  wanted  words  to 
express  the  greatest  villian  in  the  world,  he 
would  call  him  "Inigo."  Jones  having  ac- 
cused him  for  naming  him  behind  his  back  a 
fool.  He  denied  it,  but  says  he:  I  said  he 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  269 

was  an  arrant  knave,  and  I  avouch  it.  This 
is  the  Ben  who  was  trying  to  brow  beat  and 
'bully  the  British  architect,  who  first  intro- 
duced movable  scenery  and  decorations  for 
the  masque  entertainments  at  Court.  They 
were  not  in  use  at  the  public  playhouses  at 
any  time  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth and  King  James  the  First. 

How  very  unfortunate  in  his  temper  Ben 
Jonson  must  have  been  to  war  against  his  own 
bread  and  butter.  When  these  bitter  words 
were  spoken,  the  great  architect  had  personal 
connection  with  almost  every  distinguished 
person  in  literary  and  public  life  and  had 
sufficient  influence  to  deprive  him  of  employ- 
ment at  Court.  Ben  could  have  followed  the 
example  set  by  his  dearest  friend,  George 
Chapman,  who  seems  to  have  found  it  pos- 
sible to  live  permanently  at  peace  with  Inigo 
Jones  under  a  similar  connection  (masque- 
writer)  by  acceding  to  the  stage  architect's 
desire  of  prefixing  his  own  name  before  that 
of  the  poet  on  the  title  page. 

The  great  artificer  showed  extraordinary 
industry  and  skill  in  contriving  the  architec- 
tural decorations,  and  therefore  thought  him- 
self the  "biggest  toad  in  the  puddle."  So  on 


270        SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

the  title-page  of  "The  Mask  of  the  Middle 
Temple  and  Lincoln's  Inn"  as  it  was  per- 
formed before  James  VI  and  I  at  Whitehall, 
February  15th,  1613,  at  the  celebration  of  the 
Toyal  nuptial  of  the  Elector  Platine,  called 
the  "Winter  King"  and  Elizabeth,  Queen  of 
Bohemia,  we  read  "Invented  and  fashioned 
by  our  kingdomes  most  artful  and  ingenious 
architect  Inigo  Jones.  Supplied,  applied,  di- 
gested and  written  by  George  Chapman." 

But  "Rare  Ben"  would  not  yield  his  right 
to  first  place  on  the  title-page.  So  two  great 
men  were  actually  quarrelling  about  a  trivial 
matter.  However,  Jones  seems  to  have  had 
no  acquaintance  with  "Shakespeare"  the  au- 
thor of  the  plays  whose  mask  .  was  im- 
penetrable. 

The  reader  is  not  unmindful  that  the  lan- 
guage of  Ben  Jonson  is  sometimes  grossly  ap- 
probrious,  sometimes  basely  adulatory,  while 
his  laudatory  verses  on  Beaumont,  Drayton, 
Silvester,  "Shakespeare"  and  other  contem- 
porary writers  are  in  striking  contrast  to  the 
'discrepancy  of  testimony  disclosed  by  his 
; prose  works  and  conversations. 

In  the  memorial  verses  Jonson  tells  us  that 
the  Shakespearian  plays  were  "such  that 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  271 

neither  man  nor  muse  could  praise  too  much." 
The  strictest  scrutiny,  however,  into  the  life 
and  works  of  Ben  Jonson  fails  to  denote  his 
actual  acquaintance  with  the  works  of  "the 
greatest  genius  of  our  world."  What  be- 
comes of  his  enthusiastic  eulogy  of  Shakes- 
peare when  "From  my  house  in  the  Black- 
Friars  this  llth  day  of  February,  1607,"  Ben 
Jonson  writes  his  dedication — "Volpone." 
"To  the  most  noble  and  most  equal  sisters, 
the  two  famous  Universities"  which  should 
have  disclosed  his  close  friendship  and  ad- 
miration for  Shakespeare  for  the  great  dra- 
matist was  then  at  the  zenith  of  his  power. 

The  dedication  of  it  (Volpone)  and  him- 
self was  written  nine  years  before  the  death 
of  William  Shakspere  the  player,  when  Jon-, 
son  declared,  "I  shall  raise  the  despised  head 
of  poetry  again  and  stripping  her  out  of  those 
rotten  and  base  rags  wherewith  the  times  have 
adulterated  her  form." 

It  should  be  remembered  that  at  the  time 
of  this  sweeping  condemnation  of  what  he 
terms  dramatic  or  stage  poetry,  two-thirds  of 
the  "Shakespearean"  plays  were  then  written. 
All  of  the  greatest,  "Hamlet,"  "Macbeth," 
"Othello,"  "Lear,"  "Julius  Ceasar,"  "Mer- 


272         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

chant  of  Venice,"  "Romeo  and  Juliet"  and 
not  less  than  twenty  other  Shakespearean 
plays  were  in  Jonson's  estimation  in  1607, 
"rotten  and  base  rags,"  while  in  1623,  six- 
teen years  after  date  in  the  verses  prefixed 
to  the  first  folio  edition  published  in  1623 
for  the  syndicate  of  printers,  Jonson  tells  us 
that  their  author  was  "soul  of  the  age." 

In  view  of  Ben  Jonson's  tardy  apostrophe 
to  "Shakespeare,"  it  is  inconceivable  that  he 
could  have  known  the  Stratford  player  as  the 
author  of  "Hamlet,"  "Lear"  and  "Othello" 
and  not  have  extolled  him  in  commendatory 
verse  living  and  in  death  sighing  mournful 
requiem  to  his  name. 

Ben  Jonson  knew,  doubtless,  William 
Shakspere  of  Stratford-on-Avon  as  a  share 
holding  actor  of  no  considerable  repute  who 
with  other  share  holding  actors  purchased 
and  mounted  plays  written  by  other  men,  also 
as  a  money  lender,  a  very  convenient  man  in 
time  of  need,  doubtless  though  the  needy  Ben 
who  had  holes  in  his  pockets.  Therefore  "of 
Shapespeare  our  fellow  countryman,"  he 
says,  "I  loved  the  man  and  do  honour  his 
memory  on  this  side  idolatry  as  much  as  any," 
Personal  and  not  literary  appreciation. 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  273 

Keep  in  mind  that  Ben  Jonson's  celebrated 
note  on  Shakespeare  was  penned  after  his 
poetical  eulogy  and  shows  that  Ben  did  not 
esteem  Shakespeare  very  much.  The  cause 
H3f  the  upholders  of  the  Stratford  delusion 
must  be  desperate  when  they  feel  constrained 
to  discredit  their  own  witness,  Ben  Jonson, 
upon  whose  testimony  the  Shakspere  delusion 
chiefly  rests. 

Ben,  they  say,  "on  occasion  spoke  with  two 
voices/'  one  in  which  he  bristles  with  spite 
and  envy  against  Shakespeare  and  then  again 
he  sounds  a  note  of  highest  praise.  Thus  the 
Stratfordians  discredit  their  own  witness  by 
impugning  his  general  character  for  veracity, 
showing  that  "on  occasion"  he  had  made  con- 
flicting statements. 

To  give  as  an  instance,  Ben  Jonson's  two 
conflicting  statements  that  Spencer  "died  for 
want  of  bread"  and  that  he  refused  Essex 
gife  of  twenty  pieces,  saying  he  had  no  time 
to  spend  them.  However,  Essex  bore  the  cost 
of  Spencer's  interment. 

Now  that  Ben  Jonson,  as  a  witness  hav- 
ing been  discredited  by  the  party  introducing 
him,  why  is  his  evidence  not  ruled  out? 

Ben  Jonson's  egotism  would,  of  course,  pre- 


274         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL,  PHASE 

elude  a  just  jugment  of  the  work  of  his  fel- 
low poets.  He  felt  that  his  own  writings 
were  immeasurably  superior.  Did  Ben  ever 
read  the  Shakespeare  plays? 

For  the  affirmative  of  the  proposition 
there  is  not  the  faintest  presumption  of  prob- 
able evidence.  Jonson  often  became  the  gen- 
erous panegyrist  of  poets,  whose  writing  in  all 
probability  he  never  had  read. 

The  Ode  "To  the  Memory  of  my  Beloved 
Master  William  Shakespeare  and  what  he 
hath  left  us,"  is  in  Ben  Jonson's  hyperbolical 
style  of  adulation  and  he  writes  with  an  eye 
to  the  sale  of  the  first  folio  edition  (1623)  by 
the  syndicate  of  printers  and  publishers.  Giv- 
ing send  offs  was  the  recreation  and  the  de- 
light of  Ben's  life.  He  took  pleasure  in  com- 
mending in  verse  the  works  of  men  not 
worthy  of  his  notice  and  in  lauding  and 
patronizing  poeticules  like  Filmer,  Stephens, 
Wright  and  Warre,  also  Master  Joseph  Rut- 
ter — Ben's  dear  son  (in  a  lettered  sense)  and 
right  learned  friend. 

In  his  prefatory  remarks  to  the  reader  in 
"Sejanus,"  there  is  the  same  display  of  ex- 
cess of  commendation.  Ben  Jonson  writes: 
"Lastly  I  would  inform  you  that  this  book 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  275 

in  all  numbers  is  not  the  same  with  that  which 
was  acted  on  the  public  stage  wherein  a  sec- 
ond pen  had  good  share  in  place  of  which  I 
have  rather  chosen  to  put  weaker  and  no 
doubt  less  peasing  of  my  own  than  to  defraud 
so  happy  a  genius  of  his  right  by  my  loathed 
usurpations." 

According  to  Dryden,  Ben  Jonson's  com- 
pliments were  left  handed.  Nevertheless,  the 
words  "so  happy  a  genius"  have  directed  the 
thoughts  of  commentators  to  Chapman  and 
Shakespeare.  However,  the  person  alluded 
to  is  not  Chapman  or  Shakespeare,  but  a  very 
inferior  poet,  Samuel  Sheppard,  who  more 
than  forty  years  later  claimed  for  himself 
the  honor  of  having  collaborated  in  "Sejanus" 
with  Ben  Jonson.  Compliments  bestowed  o.-i 
inferior  men  of  the  elder  time  are  in  later 
times  the  reprisal  of  Stratfordian  buccaneers. 
While  many  of  Jonson's  versified  paneygrics 
on  contemporary  poets  were  retrieved  by  his 
withering  contempt  for  many  of  them  orally 
expressed  or  contained  in  his  prose  works 
"Shakespeare,"  a  pseudonymous  author  being 
included  among  them,  still  to  the  club  room 
called  "the  Appollo  of  the  Devil's  Tavern," 
come  many  who  were  numbered  amongst  the 


276         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

most  distinguished  men  of  the  day  outside  of 
literary  circles  as  well  as  within  who  sought 
his  fellowship  and  would  gladly  be  "sealed  of 
the  tribe  of  Ben." 

Cin.rendon  tells  us  that  uhis  conversations 
were  very  good  and  with  men  of  most  note." 

The  Countess  of  Rutland  favored  him  with 
her  friendship  and  patronage,  but  her  hus- 
band, the  loathsome  Roger  Manners,  fifth 
Earl  of  Rutland,  resented  her  encouragement 
of  literary  men,  he  rushing  in  upon  her  one 
day  when  Ben  Jonson  was  dining  with  her 
and  with  violence  "accused  her  that  she  kept 
table  to  poets."  These  harsh  words  were 
spoken  to  and  of  the  daughter  of  Sir  Philip 
Sidney  by  the  Earl  of  Rutland,  who  in  earlier 
days  with  the  Earl  of  Southampton  used  to 
pass  away  the  time  "in  London  merely  in  go- 
ing to  plays  every  day.' 

But  for  poets  and  playmakers  Lord  Rut- 
land did  not  share  Lord  Southampton's  lik- 
ing for  imaginative  pleasure  as  "a  dear  lover 
and  cherisher  as  well  of  the  lovers  of  poets 
themselves."  But  instead  thought  it  a  de- 
gradation to  his  Countess  "that  she  kept  table- 
to  poets." 

Elizabeth    Sidney,    Countess    of    Rutland, 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  277 

said  Ben  Jonson  "was  nothing  inferior  to  her 
father  in  poesie."  In  Beaumont's  ear  "every 
word  you  speak  is  sweet  and  mild." 

But  Sidney's  peerless  daughter,  the  Coun- 
tess of  Rutland,  was  never  discovered  dining 
with  the  play  actor  of  Stratford.  Why?  May 
they  not  then  compare  the  Shakspere  biogra- 
phical data  with  the  facts  known  concerning 
Ben  Jonson,  whose  name  and  personality  is 
(inseparably  connected  with  subjects  of  gen- 
eral literature,  while  more  is  known  of  the 
Stratford  player's  life  than  the  lives  of  the 
poets. 

But  this  availed  not,  because  of  the  nihility 
of  literary  facts  in  the  life  of  the  Stratford 
Shakspere.  What  strikes  the  reader  most  is 
the  poverty  of  the  so-called  literary  events  of 
the  Stratford  player's  life.  There  is  nothing 
to  show  in  the  events  that  he  ever  wrote 
poems  or  plays.  All  is  mere  supposition  and 
inference. 

While  there  is  comparatively  a  superabund- 
ance of  biographical  material  of  the  non-lit- 
erary sort  which  contrast  strikingly  with  the 
activities  of  a  poet,  they  do  not  compare  with 
the  well-known  literary  facts  in  the  life  of 
Ben  Jonson,  but  denote  a  relation  with  land- 


278         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

holder,  money  lender  and  share-holding  ac- 
tor, a  relation  which  does  not  involve  poet 
Shakespeare's  identity. 

I  am  convinced  that  Ben  Jonson  must  have 
had  vast,  native  ability  deeply  rooted  in  classi- 
cal literature.  He  had  vast  definite  help  from 
the  ancients.  The  best  parts  of  what  he  wrote 
Shakespeare  would  have  been  glad  to  own. 

When  Ben  Jonson  became  inebrious  he 
would  "carouse  and  swill  like  a  Dutchman." 
King  James  I,  was  also  prone  to  such  "belly 
cheer."  In  fact,  it  was  a  stock  situation  with 
His  Majesty.  We  read,  "When  Christian  IV 
of  Denmark  was  at  the  Court  of  James  I  on  a 
visit,  there  is  extant  an  account  of  a  court 
masque  in  which  the  actors  were  too  drunk  to 
continue  their  parts."  But  their  Majesties 
were  in  blissful  ignorance  of  the  fact  as  they 
were  both  "half  seas  over,"  had  drunk  swin- 
ishly. 

His  Majesty  was  again  "three  sheets  in  the 
wind"  when  Beaumont's  masque  which  was 
to  have  been  performed  at  Whitehall  on  Tues- 
day evening,  February  16th,  1613,  to  celebrate 
the  marriage  of  the  Princess  Elizabeth  to  the 
Elector  Platine.  The  stage  mechanism  was 
invented  by  Inigo  Jones,  who  was  also  stage 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  279 

architect  for  Chapman's  rival  masque,  "The 
Middle  Temple  and  Lincoln  Inn,"  presented 
on  February  ISth,  1613. 

Sir  Francis  Bacon  is  called  "the  chief  con- 
triver" of  the  Beaumont  pageant,  he  permit- 
ting no  one  to  share  the  tremendous  expense 
with  him.  But  the  gentlemen  masquers  of 
"The  Inner  Temple  and  Grays  Inn"  went  by 
water  from  Winchester  House  to  Whitehall 
seated  in  the  King's  royal  barge.  The  Royal 
family  witnessed  their  approach.  Chamber- 
lain says,  "They  were  received  at  the  privie 
stayres"  but  it  seems  got  no  further — learning 
that  the  King  was  "sleepie"  (laid  under  the 
table).  They  came  home  as  they  went  with- 
out doing  anything,  much  discouraged,  "and 
our  of  countenance." 

Ben  was  coarsely  featured  and  his  enemies 
rudely  insulted  him.  But  the  bulky  English- 
man could  have  answered  in  words  very  like 
Woodrow  Wilson's  "favorite  Limerick"  that 
runs  as  follows : 

"For  beauty  I  am  not  a  star, 

There  are  others  more  handsome  by 

far; 

But  my  face,  I  don't  mind  it, 
For  I  am  behind  it; 


280         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

It's  the  others  in  front  that  I  jar." 

Ben  Jonson's  love  of  wine  bidding  cannot 
be  denied,  "drink  was  one  of  the  elements  in 
which  he  lived,"  although  he  was  not  like 
King  James  I,  who  often  became  what  the 
Satirist,  Thomas  Nash,  called  swine  drunk, 
heavy,  lumpish  and  sleepy.  Still  this  outer 
condition  was  much  the  same,  "When  each 
line  oft  cost  Ben  a  cup  of  sack." 

"Fetch  me  Ben  Jonson's  scull  and  fill't  with 
sack  rich  as  the  same  he  drank  when  the  whole 
pack  of  jolly  sisters  pledged  and  did  agree 
it  was  no  sin  to  be  as  drunk  as  he." 

These  occasional  infractions  of  sobriety  by 
Ben  Jonson  when  he  conversed  with  Drum- 
mond  at  Hawthornden  in  1618-19,  became 
habitual  with  him  long  before  James  Howell's 
invitation  to  a  solemn  supper  by  B.  J.  in 
1636. 

It  is  truly  lamentable  to  think  on  the  last 
days  of  Ben  Jonson,  subject  to  the  brutifying 
power  of  wine,  forsaken  by  the  great  when 
he  stood  most  in  need  of  friendship  and  good 
will,  stripped  of  all  his  honors,  his  place  as 
masque  writer  for  the  Kings'  entertainments 
at  Court,  "supplied  by  one  Townsend."  Con- 


Ben  Johnson 


Milton 


Spencer 


Vmceot 
Bnsby 


TRANSEPTS 

Jill 

536     5 

ill  r. 


Southey         Boras 
Campbell  O  Mrs.  Pritchard 

Pan  Litlington        Thomioa 

CHAPEL    Tudor 
Cary    OF  Bcnsoa         Row« 

ST.    BLAISE 
Samuel  C«mb«taBd 


Dickens 


ill 


If 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  281 

fined  by  want  and  a  fatal  malady  of  a  paraly- 
tic nature  in  a  wretched  lodging  in  an  alley. 
The  weariness  of  waning  years  seemed  long 
and  were  dark  and  stormy. 

And  it  is  with  a  keen  sense  of  pain  and  sor- 
row, of  pity  and  regret  we  read  the  mendicant 
epistles  addressed  to  several  noblemen. 

"He  asked  for  bread"  but  when  the  sum- 
mons came  they  bore  him  to  the  quiet  resting 
place  under  the  shadow  of  the  "Cloudcapt 
Towers"  of  Westminster  Abby  and  he  re- 
ceived a  stone.  "O  Rare  Ben  Jonson." 

WHO  WAS  SHAKE— SCENE?— (THE  OBJECT 
OF  ROBERT  GREENE'S  CENSURE) 

IX. 

The  prominence  given  to  Robert  Greene 
in  the  manuals  of  our  literature,  is  not  to  make 
known  the  fact  that  he  was  one  of  the  very 
few  poets  and  dramatic  writers  who  in  a  li- 
centious age, — "left  scarce  a  line  that  dying 
he  need  have  wished  to  blot,"  but  instead,  his 
character  as  usually  framed  by  the  critic  is 
intended  merely  to  cast  obloquy  on  his  mem- 


282         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ory,  and  to  reveal  by  the  hot  breath  of  relent- 
less scorn  the  unfathomable  bitterness  an'd  rag- 
ing hate  of  the  commentators. 

Henry  Chettle  imagined  the  dead  poet's 
hand  guiding  his  own  in  writing  the  following 
sentence:  "There  is  no  glory  gained  by 
breaking  a  dead  man  skull."  When  Chettle 
wrote  these  words  in  1592,  Robert  Greene  was 
dead,  and,  of  course,  could  not  reply  to  Ga- 
brial  Harvey's  slurring  aspersions.  But  his 
defender,  Thomas  Nash,  with  his  satirizing 
pen,  "possessed  with  Hercules  furies,"  flamed 
with  invective  against  the  earliest  calumina- 
tor  of  Greene's  memory,  and  excruciated  him 
with  a  trenchant  irony  which  few  have  ever 
equalled,  and  probably  no  one  has  surpassed. 

Robert  Greene,  like  Marlowe,  Burns  and 
Poe — three  among  the  "greatest  inheritors  of 
unfulfilled  renown,"  died  in  the  dawn  of  his 
manhood,  distressed  and  neglected.  Their 
lives  became  a  tragedy  in  the  sun-dawn  of 
fame  from  habits  of  intoxication;  they 
wrecked  themselves  by  strong  drink  while 
the  shadows  still  were  inclining  towards  the 
west. 

Robert  Greene,  although  not  a  great  world- 
poet  like  Robert  Burns  and  Edwin  Markham 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  283 

who  could  rouse  the  thought  of  the  people, 
still  like  them,  he  was  the  "poet  of  the  com- 
mon man,"  whose  writings  notwithstanding 
the  laxity  of  the  age,  are  unusually  clean.  But 
having  an  overpowering  thirst  for  alcohol,  he 
seems  never  to  have  answered  "NO"  to  his 
evil,  winebibber  associates,  so  he  fell  a  prey 
to  the  brutifying  power  of  strong  drink. 

"He  had  faults,  perhaps  had  many, 

But  one  fault  above  them  all 
Lay  like  heavy  lead  upon  him, 

Tryant  of  a  patient  thrall. 
Tryant  seen,  confessed  and  hated, 

Banished  only  to  recall. 
At  his  birth  an  evil  spirit, 

Charms    and   spells    around   him 

flung 
And  with  well  concocted  malice, 

Laid  a  curse  upon  his  tongue ; 
Curse  that  daily  made  him  wretched 

Earth's  most  wretched  sons  among. 
He  could  plead,  expound  and  argue, 

Fire  with  wit  with  wisdom  glow; 
But  one  word  forever  failed  him, 

Sourse  of  all  his  pain  and  woe; 
Luckless  man!  he  could  not  say  it, 

Could  not,  dare  not,  answer — No." 

In  this  connection,  without  mincing  mat- 
ters, I  wish  to  state  a  fact  that  you  compre- 


284         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

hend  a  man  better  after  you  know  the  sort  of 
things  his  enemies  tell  about  him,  and  the 
sort  of  things  his  friends  tell  about  him. 
There  is  always  something  divulging  about 
the  admixture. 

However,  we  would  suggest  that  the  critics 
and  commentators  with-hold  their  critical  cen- 
sure until  it  is  positively  known  who  the  per- 
son was  with  a  tiger's  heart  wrapped  up  in 
the  hide  of  a  player,  and  who  thought  himself 
the  only  "Shake-Scene"  (jig  dancer),  before 
they  abuse  young  Greene  on  account  of  a  fanc- 
iful conjecture,  by  making  his  reputation  a 
prey  for  carrion  literary  crows  to  peck  at. 

Our  critics  and  commentators  attempt  to 
deduce  his  autobiography  from  passages 
taken  from  his  novels,  contained  in  the  main 
in  his  reputed  posthumous  works.  We  know 
that  Greene's  last  illness  was  sudden  and  of 
short  duration,  and  he  may  have  left  a  few 
it  not  "many  papers,"  as  Chettle  avers,  "in 
sundry  booksellers  hands."  Among  others, 
(probably)  The  Black  Books  Messenger, 
which  was  never  finished  as  the  death  sum- 
mons came  before  he  could  complete  the 
manuscript.  However,  a  short  time  before 
his  death  he  had  published  a  part  of  it,— 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  285 

The  Life  and  Death  of  Ned  Browne,  the  sup- 
posed confessions  of  one  of  the  most  notorious 
cut-purses  and  scoundrels  that  ever  lived  in 
England,  a  man  of  gentlemanlike  appearance 
who  alternated  between  London  and  Fland- 
ers. He  was  at  last  hanged  for  robbing  a 
church  in  France.  The  Black  Book  com- 
pletely took  in  the  public.  Greene  had  planned 
the  Confessions  of  another  malefactor,  which 
he  intended  to  publish  separately  also  but 
the  second  Confession  never  came  into  view 
though  it  seems  to  have  been  prepared.  It 
was  the  first  thing  he  said  which  he  intended 
to  publish  after  his  recovery. 

Mr.  J.  Churton  Collins  says,  "that  the  Re- 
pentance bears  a  suspiciously  close  resem- 
blance to  The  Confessions  of  Ned  Browne, 
published  by  Greene  a  short  time  before  and 
may  have  been  interpolated  with  passages  tak- 
en from  that  work,"  which  Mr.  Collins  cites. 

Compare  the  following  excerptions  out  of 
the  Coney-Catching  Pamphlets,  Ned  Browne 
and  The  Repentance,  by  J.  Churton  Collins. 
(The  Plays  and  Poems,  Vol.  1,  p.  51). 

( 1 )  My  parents  who  for  their  gravitie  and 
honest  life  were  well  known  and  esteemed 
amongst  their  neighbors.  Repentance. 


286         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

(2)  Know  therefore  that  my  parents  were 
honest  of  good  reporte  and  no  little  esteem 
amongst  their  neighbors.    Ned  Browne. 

(3)  But  as  out  of  one  selfsame  clod  of  clay 
there  sprouts,  boath  stinking  weeds  and  de- 
lightful flowers,  so  from  honest  parents  often 
grow  most  dishonest  children,  for  my  father 
had  a  care  to  have  me  in  my  nonage  brought 
up  at  school  that  I — Repentance. 

(4)  (My  parents)  Sought  of  good  nature 
and  education  would  have  served  to  have  me 
made  an  honest  man  but  as  one  self  same 
ground  brings  forth  flowers  and  thistles,  so  of 
a  sound  stock  proved  an  untoward  syon  and  of 
a  venturous  father  a  most  vicious  sonne,  it 
bootes  little  to  rehearse  the  sinnes  of  my  non- 
age.   Ned  Browne. 

(5)  Young  yet  in  yeares  though   old  in 
wickedness,  I  began  to  resolve  that  there  was 
nothing  bad  in  that  was  profitable  whereupon 
I  grew  rooted  to  all  mischief  that  I  had  a 
great  delight  in  wickedness  as  sundres,  both  in 
goodiness.    Repentance. 

(6)  For  when  I  came  to  eighteen  years  old 
what  sinne  was  it  that  I  would  not  commit 
with  greediness,  why  I  held  them  excellent 
qualities  and  accounted  him  unworthy  to  live 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  287 

that  could  not  or  durst  not  live  by  such  damn- 
able practises.    Ned  Browne. 

(7)  So  that  by  their  foolish  persuasion  the 
good  and  wholesome  lessons  I  had  learnt  went 
quite  out  of  my  remembrance  and  I  fell  again 
with  the  dog  to  my  old  vomite.     Repentance. 

(8)  So  given  over  by  God  into  a  reprobate 
sense,  I  had  no  feeling  of  goodness  but  with 
the  dog  fell  to  my  old  vomit.    Ned  Browne. 

The  Repentance  is  probably  the  forging,  in 
part  at  least,  of  its  publisher,  Cuthbert  Burby, 
at  that  time  a  young  man  striving  for  bread 
and  prominence.  For  Greene's  name  at  that 
date  was  a  name  to  conjure  with,  but  Burby 
is  silent  as  to  how  it  came  into  his  possession. 
The  young  publisher  is  the  sole  sponsor  for  the 
work.  Those  who  had  no  confidence  in  the 
authenticity  of  The  Repentance  were  Hazlitt, 
Ulrici,  Brodenstedit  and  Collier. 

The  outcome  of  my  scrutiny  was  a  clear 
conviction  that  The  Repentance^  as  a  whole, 
is  a  soddy  piece  of  rude  forgery,  more  especi- 
ally in  passages  where  the  pamphleteer  in  his 
own  person,  asserts  his  identification  with 
Robert  Greene  by  writing  the  name  in  full  as 
in  the  sentence — "Robert  Greene  thou  art 
damned."  It  seems  strange  that  so  many  of 


288         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

our  critics  should  have  been  the  victim  of  this 
gullery. 

Mr.  Collier  was  not  convinced  of  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  Groatsivorth  of  IV it  (Life  of 
Shakespeare).  We  think  these  doubts  well 
founded  and  the  critics  faked  by  daring  fabri- 
cations. Accepting  the  very  affecting  letter 
to  the  playwrights  addressed  by  Greene,  with 
which  the  "Groats worth"  concludes,  we  may 
infer  also  that  "Groatsivorth  of  Wit"  may  have 
been  compiled  in  part  from  certain  papers, 
"The  Confessions"  of  another  malefactor, 
which  Greene  intended  to  publish  upon  re- 
covery from  sickness. 

No  wonder  Burby  and  Chettle  are  in  a 
hurry  to  bring  out  two  such  publications  as 
The  Repentance  and  Groatsworih  of  Wit,  in 
their  attempt  to  trade  on  Greene's  name.  For 
Greene  was  a  very  popular  and  many-sided 
author,  beloved  by  the  people.  The  most 
celebrated  of  the  early  pamphleteers,  Francis 
Meres,  ranks  Robert  Greene  among  "the  poets 
who  are  the  glory  of  England,"  also  among 
the  best  comedians.  If  Meres  may  be  trusted 
as  a  witness  to  the  literary  reputation  of 
"Shakespeare,"  why  not  as  a  witness  to  the 
reputation  of  Greene's  literary  fame? 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  289 

All  doubt  about  the  authorship  of  The  Re- 
pentance seems  removed  by  an  impartial  com- 
parison with  the  Confessions  contained  in  The 
Black  Book.  For  the  reputed  deathbed  pam- 
phlet (The  Repentance)  bears  a  very  close 
analagy  to  the  supposed  Confessions  of  Dare- 
devil Ned  Browne,  whose  villainy  is  read  into 
Robert  Greene's  life  by  the  fabricator  of  The 
Repentance,  who  had  taken  advantage  of 
Greene's  popularity  with  the  reading  public. 

The  critics  manifest  a  very  strong  desire  to 
read  into  Greene's  life  the  depraved  and  vil- 
lainous characters  contained  in  the  reputed 
autobiographical  works,  which  are  supposed 
to  personate  him  in  the  opinion  of  his  de- 
famers,  and  to  characterize  him  under  every 
name  known  to  knavery.  In  spite  of  that  the 
purity  of  his  writings  refute  the  slander,  as 
doth  his  sincere  desire  to  serve  the  cause  of 
virtue  in  the  interest  of  good  citizenship  by 
his  democratic  sympathies. 

He  says:  "Let  thy  children's  nurture  be 
their  richest  portion,  for  wisdom  is  more  pre- 
cious than  wealth." 

The  pamphlets  of  Greene  gave  the  London 
thieves  and  roughs  a  sudden  scare  and  many 
were  seized  with  a  panic,  for  he  was  contin- 


290         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ually  threatening  to  make  known  their  names 
and  send  them  to  the  gallows.  He  often  wrote 
their  initials  with  vacant  spaces  for  inserting 
names,  with  — "I  will  not  betray  his  name." 
Greene  tells  us  that  he  was  in  familiar  inter- 
course with  the  rascals  whose  ways  and  tricks 
he  describes,  not  as  a  comrade  but  as  a  secret 
agent  to  detect  their  knavery.  Greene  tells  us 
also  in  the  introduction,  that  he  had  in  view 
the  confessions  of  still  another  coney-catcher 
who  had  lately  been  executed  at  Newgate,  but 
on  reconsidering  changed  his  mind,  "because 
the  man  had  died  penitent."  He  had  hoped, 
he  said,  "to  make  out  of  the  Newgate  felon's 
Repentance  an  edifying  work  which  would 
be  worth  the  regard  of  every  honest  person, 
which  parents  might  present  to  their  children 
and  masters  to  their  servants." 

Robert  Greene  was  not  "Lip-holy"  or  base 
enough  to  sham,  for  he  was  utterly  above  pre- 
tending to  be  what  he  was  not,  and  could  not 
have  been  the  monster  of  iniquity  that  his 
enemies,  drenched  in  hate,  set  forth  after 
Greene  was  dead  and  could  not  answer. 

Robert  Greene  was  conspicuous  among  the 
writers  of  his  day  for  versatility  and  quickness 
in  composition,  and  the  power  of  turning  his 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  291 

mind  with  ease  to  various  subjects  exemplified 
by, — "A  quaint  dispute  between  Velvet- 
breeches  and  Cloth-breeches."  The  dispute  is 
as  to  whether  the  courtier  (Velvet-breeches), 
or  the  tradesman  (Cloth-breeches),  is  entitled 
to  the  greater  respect,  and  a  jury  of  tradesmen 
is  summoned  to  make  a  decision. 

Now  we  may  notice  in  this  connection  that 
the  supposed  Confessions  of  Browne  and  the 
supposed  "Last  Speech  and  Dying"  words  of 
Elliston,  who  was  executed  in  1722  for  street 
robbery  in  Dublin,  are  strictly  analagous. 
Dean  Swift,  in  composing  Elliston's  pretended 
dying  speech,  gave  it  the  flavor  of  genuine- 
ness. Scott  says  it  was  "received  as  genuine 
by  the  bandits  who  had  been  companions  of 
his  depredations.  The  threat  which  it  held 
out  of  a  list  containing  their  names,  crimes  and 
places  of  rendezvous,  operated  for  a  long  time 
in  preventing  a  repetition  of  their  villanies." 
Swift  parallels  Greene  in  his  methods  of  war- 
fare with  the  criminal  classes  and  had  the  same 
salutary  effect  in  producing  consternation 
among  the  members  of  other  gangs  of  these 
desperadoes  which  infested  the  city  of  Dublin. 

Greene's  writings  disclose  his  partiality  to 
"The  Man  with  the  Hoe,"  and  reveal  his 


292         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

democratic  sympathies  that  breathed  into  the 
coney-catching  series,  the  soul  of  brother- 
hood, the  spirit  of  civil  humanity;  in  extend- 
ing a  brother's  hand  and  a  brother's  heart  to 
the  poorer  classes  in  their  struggle  against 
class  distinction,  social  injustice;  against  the 
minions  of  tragic  greed  who  believed  in  the 
"super-man"  and  against  the  doctrine  of  sel- 
fishness, pride,  arrogance  and  self-conceit. 

The  popularity  of  the  pamphlet  was  re- 
markable, it  went  through  several  editions  in 
English.  In  1621  it  was  translated  into  Dutch 
and  published  at  Leyden,  where  it  went 
through  several  editions  also. 

Greene  made  it  the  glorious  opportunity 
when  describing  London's  low-life  to  give 
flunkyism,  as  expressed  by  the  names  of  Ga- 
briel and  Richard  Harvey,  a  sudden  chill,  the 
Harvey  Brothers,  who  had  snubbed  Greene 
and  always  stood  scornfully  apart  from  him 
and  his  circle.  The  second  brother,  Richard, 
was  well  known,  both  as  an  astrologer  and  a 
divine,  who,  according  to  Nash  was  "a  notable 
ruffan  with  his  pen,"  and  had  furnished  two 
pamphlets  to  the  "Martin  Marprelate"  dis- 
cussion, as  it  was  called,  from  the  pen  name. 
In  them  he  had  spoken  disdainfully  of  Greene 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  293 

and  his  friends,  calling  them  "peperly-make 
plays  and  make-bates." 

This  it  was  which  brought  Greene  into  the 
field  after  the  Harveys  had  raised  a  swarm  of 
trouble  for  themselves  unwittingly  "to  stir  up 
a  hornet's  nest,"  and  the  prodding  and  stinging 
they  got  by  'hornet-like"  Tom  Nash  was 
dreadful  in  its  causticness.  "Let  sleeping  dogs 
lie." 

The  Harvey  Brothers  were  snobs.  The 
eldest,  Gabriel's,  strong  desire  was  to  worm 
himself  into  favor  among  the  aristocracy,  to 
cover  up  his  antecedents  from  the  lower  rank, 
and  to  treat  his  equals  with  derision  and 
haunghty  disrespect.  Of  this  there  can  be  no 
question, — with  all  his  faults  there  was  noth- 
ing of  this  weakness  or  snobbishness  in  Robert 
Greene,  who  had  himself  sprung  from  the 
common  people  though  born  to  good  condi- 
tion. 

Robert  Burton,  a  contemporary,  writing  in 
"The  Spacious  time  of  Great  Elizabeth,"  says 
that  idleness  was  the  mark  of  the  nobility,  and 
to  earn  money  in  any  kind  of  trade  was  de- 
spicable. Gabriel  Harvey  flung  in  Greene's 
face  the  fact  that  he  made  a  living  by  his  pen. 

In  one  of  these  fanciful  studies  in  Eliza- 


294         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

bethan  literature,  which  I  now  hold  in  my 
hand,  we  may  read  that  Greene  has  very  vul- 
garly libeled  Harvey's  ancestry,  but  when  we 
turn  to  Greene's  book,  we  learn  that  the  vul- 
garity consists  in  calling  Gabriel  Harvey's 
father  a  ropemaker.  Only  a  snob  would  re- 
gard any  honest  employment  as  a  degradation ; 
still  the  lines  which  so  mortally  offended  Ga- 
briel were  suppressed  by  Greene.  "How  is  he 
(Gabriel's  father)  abused?"  writes  Nash. 
"Instead  of  his  name,  he  is  called  by  the  craft 
he  gets  his  living  with." 

Harvey  was  ostentatiously  courting  noto- 
riety by  the  gorgeousness  of  his  apparel,  cur- 
rying favor  with  the  great,  and  aping  Venetian 
gentility  after  his  return  from  Italy.  His 
inordinate  vanity  is  best  shown  by  his  publica- 
tion of  everything  spoken  or  written  in  com- 
mendation of  himself  by  his  obsequious  friends 
and  flatterers.  Harvey  writes,  "Though  Spen- 
ser me  hath  ofte  Homer  term'd,"  Spenser  is 
here  giving  his  college  friend  a  send-off.  But 
it  seems  strange  that  Spenser  should  have  writ- 
ten the  following  line,  "Ne  fawnest  for  the 
favour  of  the  great" — who  was  in  effect  as 
flunkish  as  Spenser  himself"  —"tarred  with  the 
same  brush,"  as  Mr.  J.  C.  Collins  puts  it. 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  295 

Robert  Greene's  account  of  the  repentance 
and  reformation  of  a  fallen  woman  is  told  in 
a  way  that  discloses  the  poet's  kindness  of  heart 
and  fullness  of  humanitarian  spirit  and  high 
ideal  of  womanhood.  He  assured  his  readers 
in  the  words  of  the  woman  herself,  "that  hery 
false  step  gradually  led  her  on  to  complete 
ruin,"  so  heavy  burdened  with  grief  and  shame 
that  death  seemed  to  her  a  benefaction  and  the 
grave  the  only  place  for  perfect  rest.  Not 
a  few  there  may  have  been  who  on  reading 
Greene's  story  of  the  reformation  and  redemp- 
tion of  the  unfortunate  woman,  were  started 
•on  the  path  of  regeneration. 

I  know  not  where  to  look  for  a  word  picture 
more  conducive  to  virtue  and  friendly  to  re- 
claimed womanhood  than  this  one  framed  by 
Robert  Greene.  When  the  light  of  these  lives 
had  been  extinguished,  the  poor,  unfortunate, 
erring  ones  had  found  a  friend  and  helper— 
not  in  a  "fish-blooded,"  pharisaical  critic,  but 
in  a  dissolute  living  man, — he  saved  others, 
himself  he  failed  to  save.  Of  all  sad  words, 
the  saddest  to  me  are  those  from  a  fallen  wom- 
an :  "I  had  no  mother  and  we  were  so  young." 

In   the   manuals   of   our   literature,    great 
prominence  is  given  to  the  fact  that  Greene 


296         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

led  a  dissolute  or  irregular  life,  as  if  the  de- 
bauchment  of  the  author  was  transmitted  by 
his  writings.  There  are  no  indecencies  in  his 
works  to  attest  the  passage  of  a  debauchee. 
Like  many  persons  born  to,  and  nurtured  by 
religious  parents,  Greene  doubtless  exag- 
gerated his  own  vices.  It  may  truly  be  said 
of  him  that  in  regard  to  all  that  pertains  to 
penitence  and  self-abasement,  he  spares  not 
himself,  but  like  John  Bunyan,  he  was  given 
to  self-upbraiding.  He  (Bunyan)  declares 
it  is  true  that  he  let  loose  the  rein  on  the  neck 
of  his  lust,  that  he  delighted  in  all  transgres- 
sions against  the  divine  law  and  that  he  was 
the  ringleader  of  the  youth  of  Elstow  in  all 
vice.  But  when  those  who  wished  him  ill,  ac- 
cused him  of  licentious  amours,  he  called  God 
and  the  angels  to  attest  his  purity.  No  wom- 
an, he  said,  in  heaven,  earth  or  hell  could 
charge  him  with  having  ever  made  any  im- 
proper advances  to  her.  Blasphemy  and  Sab- 
bath breaking  seem  to  have  been  Bunyan's 
onlv  transgressions  after  all. 

In  Greene's  writings  we  have  the  reverse 
of  "Herrick's  shameful  pleading,  that  if  his 
verse  was  impure,  his  life  was  chaste."  Un- 
like Herrick,  Greene  did  not  minister  to  the 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  297 

unchaste  appetite  of  readers  for  tainted  lit- 
erature, either  in  his  day  or  in  the  after  time. 
Powerless  to  condemn  Greene's  writings,  de- 
famers  would  desecrate  his  ashes. 

Deplore  as  we  must  Robert  Greene's  disso- 
lute living,  it  was  of  short  duration,  for  he 
went  from  earth  at  the  age  of  two  and  thirty, 
and  the  evil  effects  have  been  lost  in  Time's 
abatement.  His  associates  were  probably  as 
dissolute  as  himself. 

Nash  wrote, — "With  any  notorious  crime  I 
never  knew  him  tainted  and  he  inherited  more 
virtues  than  vices." 

Whatever,"  writes  Collins,  "his  life  had 
been,  he  had  never  prostituted  his  pen  to 
coarseness  and  licentiousness.  His  writings 
'had  been  Puritanic  in  their  scrupulous  ab- 
stinence." 

Robert  Greene  expired  on  the  third  day  of 
September,  1592.  When  the  dead  genius  was 
in  his  grave,  Gabriel  Harvey  gloated  and 
•leered  with  ghoulish  glee,  and  wrote  of 
Greene's  "most  woeful  and  rascal  estate,  how 
the  wretched  fellow  or  shall  I  say  the  prince 
of  beggars,  laid  all  to  gage  for  some  few  shill- 
ings and  was  attended  by  lice."  This  is  one 
of  Harvey's  malignant,  vitroilic  discharges  in 


298         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

his  attempt  to  spatter  the  memory  and  dese- 
crate the  poet's  tomb. 

Francis  Meres  of  Palladia  Tamia  fame,  a 
contemporary  and  ardent  admirer  of  Greene, 
thus  alludes  to  the  ghoulish  instincts  of  Har- 
vey— "As  Achilles  tortured  the  deade  bodie 
of  Hector  and  as  Antonius  and  his  wife  Fulvia 
tormented  the  lifeless  corps  of  Cicero,  so  Ga- 
briel Harvey  hath  shewed  the  same  inhuman- 
itie  to  Greene  that  lies  full  low  in  his  grave." 
(Palladius  Tamia,  1598). 

But  why  should  the  modern  reader  linger 
over  the  irregularities  of  dissolute  living  au- 
thors like  Greene  and  Poe,  whose  writings 
are  exceptionally  clean?  The  commentators 
and  pharisaic  critics  who  have  written  con- 
cerning Greene  are  mere  computists  of  the 
poet's  vices.  When  loud-mouthed  detraction 
calls  him  bad-hearted,  we  should  not  forget 
that  this  dissolute  man  could  and  did  keep  in- 
violate the  purity  of  his  imagination.  Few 
have  left  a  wealthier  legacy  in  feminine 
models  of  moral  and  physical  beauty.  Re- 
member Robert  Burns'  noble  words, — "What 
done  we  partly  may  compute  but  know  not 
what  resisted." 

In    all    the    galleries    of    noble    women, 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  299 

Greene's  heroines  deserve  a  foremost  place,  for 
all  the  gracious  types  of  womanhood  belonged 
to  Greene  before  they  became  "Shakespeare." 
His  writings  have  assauged  the  sorrow  of  the 
self-sacrificing  mother  who  is  always  a  queen 
uncrowned,  long-suffering  and  faithful. 

There  is  no  record  extant  of  Robert 
Greene's  living  likeness.  Chettle  gives  this 
pleasant  description  of  his  personal  appear- 
ance: "A  man  of  indifferent  years,  of  face 
amiable,  of  body  well  proportioned,  his  attire 
after  the  habit  of  scholarlike  gentlemen,  only 
his  hair  was  somewhat  long,  whom  I  supposed 
to  be  Robert  Greene,  Master  of  Arts." 

Nash  notices  his  tawny  beard, — a  jolly  long 
red  peak  like  the  spire  of  a  steeple  which  he 
cherished  continually  without  cutting,  where- 
at a  man  might  hang  a  jewel,  it  was  so  sharp 
and  pendant." 

Harvey,  who  "was  altogether  unacquainted 
with  the  man  and  never  once  saluted  him  by 
name,"  says  that  'He  wore  such  long  hair  as 
was  only  worn  by  thieves  and  cut-throats,  and 
taunts  Nash  with  wearing  the  same  'unseemly 
superfluity.'  " 

The  habit  of  wearing- the  hair  long  is  not 
unusual  with  poets.  Milton  and  Tennyson 


300         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

cherished  the  same  "superfluity,"  as  did  also 
the  late  Joaquin  Miller.  How  dear  to  the 
"poet  of  the  Sierras"  were  his  tawny  tresses 
resting  on  his  shoulders,  who  could  not  be 
moved  by  persuasive  words  to  part  with  them 
even  from  the  lips  of  so  worthy  a  friend  as 
Ina  Coolbrith,  Poet  Laureate  of  California. 

Very  little  is  known  with  any  degree  of  cer- 
tainty concerning  the  personal  life  of  Robert 
Greene,  and  very  little,  if  anything,  in  re- 
gard to  his  family  or  ancestry,  although  much 
prominence  is  given  by  imaginery  writers  to 
the  history  of  his  person  in  the  hand-books  of 
our  literature.  These  writers  attach  an  au- 
tobiographical realty  to  their  dreams  of  fancy. 
They  take  advantage  of  Greene's  unbounded 
sincerity  and  his  own  too  candid  confession  in 
the  address  to  the  play  writers,  and  of  his  own 
irrepressible  desire  to  sermonize,  whether  in 
plays  or  pamphlets,  with  all  the  fervor  of  a 
devout  Methodist  having  a  license  to  exhort. 

Had  young  Greene  lived  a  longer  life  with 
all  its  wealth  of  bud  and  bloom,  we  should 
now  have  in  fruition  a  luxuriance  of  imagina- 
tion and  versatility  of  diction  possessed  by  few. 
With  longer  life  he  would  probably  have 
gained  command  of  himself,  for  there  was  in 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  301 

the  poet's  strivings,  during  the  last  few  years 
of  his  life,  the  promise  and  prophecy  of  a 
glorious  future.  His  soul  enlarged,  he  battled 
for  the  common  weal ;  his  heart  was  with  the 
lowly  and  his  voice  was  for  the  right  when 
freedom's  friends  were  few. 

In  his  play,  "Pinner  of  Wakefield,"  first 
printed  in  1599,  Robert  Greene  makes  a  hero 
and  a  very  strenuous  one,  of  a  mere  pound- 
keeper  who  proudly  refuses  Knighthood  at  the 
hands  of  the  king.  "In  the  first  scene  of  the 
play  when  Sir  Nicholas  Mannering  appears 
in  Wakefield,  with  his  commission  from  the 
rebel  Earl  of  Kendal,  and  demands  victuals 
for  the  rebel  army,  the  stalwart  pound- 
keeper  steps  forward,  makes  the  Knight  eat 
his  words  and  then  his  seal.  What,  are  you 
in  choler?  I  will  give  you  pills  to  cool  your 
'stomach.  Seest  thou  these  seals?  Now  by  my 
father's  soul,  which  was  a  yeoman's  wheir  he 
was  alive,  eat  them  or  eat  my  dagger's  point, 
proud  Squire.'  The  Earl  of  Kendal  and  other 
noblemen  next  appear  in  disguise  and  send 
their  horses  into  the  Pinner's  corn  to  brave 
him.  The  pound-keeper  approaches,  and 
after  altercation,  strikes  the  Earl.  Lord  Bon- 
field  says, — 'Villain,  what  hast  thou  done? 


302         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Thou  hast  struck  an  Earl.'    Pinner  answers,— 
'Why,  what  care  I?    A  poor  man  that  is  true 
is  better  than  an  Earl  if  he  be  false.' ' 

A  yeoman  boxing  or  cuffing  the  ear  of  an 
Earl!  This  has  all  the  breezy  freshness  of 
American  democracy. 

The  voice  of  the  yeoman  is  often  heard  in 
Greene's  drama,  not  as  buffoon  and  lackey,  but 
as  freeman,  whose  voice  is  echoed  at  Naseby 
and  Marston's  gory  field  of  glory,  where  the 
sturdy  yeomanry  of  England  strove  to  do  and 
to  dare  for  the  eternal  right — soldiers  who 
never  cowered  from  "sheen  of  spear"  nor 
paled  at  flashing  steel. 

With  Greene  rank  is  never  the  measure  of 
merit.  To  peer  and  yeoman  he  gave  equal 
hospitality,  for  Robert  Greene  was  as  friendly 
to  the  poor  man's  rags  as  to  the  purple  robe 
of  king. 

Greene  in  his  popular  sympathies  is  thor- 
oughly with  the  working  classes — "the  great 
plain  people  of  which  Lincoln  said  that  God 
must  have  loved  them  for  he  made  so  many 
of  them."  Greene  never  missed  an  opportun- 
ity to  testify  to  the  fact  that  "the  souls  of  em- 
perors and  cobblers  are  all  cast  in  the  same 
mould."  His  heroes  and  heroines  are  taken 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  303 

many  of  them  from  humble  life.  In  the  Pin- 
ner of  Wakefield,  there  is  a  very  clear  discern- 
ment of  democratic  principle  in  the  struggle 
against  prerogatives.  Half  of  those  plays  of 
Greene,  which  we  still  possess,  are  devoted 
to  the  representation  of  the  life  of  the  great 
plain  people  which  gave  lineage  to  Abraham 
Lincoln,  John  Bunyan  and  Ben  Franklin. 

X. 

However,  if  we  would  understand  the  mat- 
ter in  hand  thoroughly  we  must  opncentrate 
our  attention  and  thought  intently  upon  the 
celebrated  letter  written  by  the  dying  hand  of 
Robert  Greene,  and  addressed  to  three  brother 
poets,  to  whom  he  administers  a  gentle  reproof 
on  account  of  their  bygone  and  present 
"faults,"  of  which  play-writing  was  most  to 
be  shunned.  This  remarkable  letter  reveals 
Robert  Greene  as  the  most  tragc  figure  of  his 
time — a  sad  witness  of  his  ultimate  penitence 
and  absolute  confession,  a  character  of  pathe- 
tic sincerity  and  weirdness,  and  charnel-like 
gloom  that  chills  the  soul.  This  letter,  so  often 
'referred  to,  and  seemingly  so  little  understood 
is  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  pieces  of  writ- 
ing in  our  literary  annals.  It  has  all  the  credi- 


304         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

bility  that  a  dying  statement  can  give,  but  it 
also  evidences  the  fact  that  Robert  Greene 
had  previously  drawn  the  fire  of  the  improvis- 
ing actors  who  wrought  the  disfigurement  of 
the  poet's  work.  There  is  one  in  particular 
at  whom  he  hurls  a  dart  and  hits  the  mark. 

"Yes,  trust  them  not;  for  their  is  an  upstart 
crow,  beautified  with  our  (poets)  feathers, 
that,  with  his  Tygers  heart,  wrapt  in  a  Players 
hide,  supposes  he  is  well  able  to  bombast  out 
a  blanke  verse  as  the  best  of  you;  and  being  an 
absolute  'Johannes  Factotum/  is  in  his  own 
conceit,  the  onely  Shaks-scene  in  a  countrie." 

This  sorrow-stricken  man  wrote  these  words 
of  censure  with  the  utmost  sincerity.  Earlier 
biographers  made  no  attempt  to  read  "Shakes- 
peare" into  these  lines  of  reproof,  but  those 
only  of  later  times  regard  the  allusion  invalu- 
able as  being  the  first  literary  notice  of  Shakes- 
peare and  find  pleasure  in  reading  into 
Shakespeare's  life  the  alleged  fact  of  his  hav- 
ing been  satirized  in  1592  under  the  name 
"Shake-scene"  used  by  Greene  contumeliously. 

The  letter  is  contained  in  a  little  work  en- 
titled "Greene's  Groats  Worth  of  Wit," 
"Bought  with  a  Million  of  Repentance,"  orig- 
inally published  in  1592,  having  been  entered 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  305 

at  Stationers  Hall  on  the  20th  of  September 
in  that  year.  "To  those  gentlemen  his  Quon- 
dam acquaintance,  that  spend  their  wits  in 
making  Plaies." 

"With  thee  (Marlowe)  will  I  first  begin, 
thou  famous  gracer  of  tragedians,  that  Greene, 
who  hath  said  with  thee,  like  the  foole  in  his 
heart,  there  is  no  God,  should  now  give  glorie 
unto  His  greatnesse;  for  penetrating  is  His 
power,  His  hand  lies  heavy  upon  me,  He  hath 
spoken  unto  me  with  a  voice  of  thunder  and 
I  have  felt  He  is  a  God  that  can  punish  ene- 
mies. Why  should  thy  excellent  wit,  His  gift, 
be  so  blinded  that  thou  shouldst  give  no  glory 
to  the  giver?"  *  *  * 

"With  thee  I  enjoyne  young  Juvenall, 
'(Nash)  that  byting  satyrist  that  lastlie  with 
mee  together  writ  a  comedie.  Sweete  boy, 
might  I  advise  thee,  be  advised,  and  get  not 
many  enemies  by  bitter  words  .  .  .  Blame 
not  schollers  vexed  with  sharp  lines,  if  they 
reprove  thy  too  much  libertie  of  reproofe." 

"And  thou  (Peele)  no  less  deserving  than 
the  other  two,  in  some  things  rarer,  in  nothing 
inferiour;  driven  (as  myself e)  to  extreame 
shifts,  a  little  have  I  to  say  to  thee ;  and  were 
it  not  an  idolatrous  oath,  I  would  swear  by 


306         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

sweet  S.  George  thou  art  unworthie  better 
hap,  sith  thou  dependest  on  so  meane  a  stay, 
(theatre).  Baseminded  men,  all  three  of  you, 
if  by  my  miseries  ye  be  not  warned;  for  unto 
none  of  you,  like  me,  sought  those  burrs  to 
cleave;  those  pupits,  I  meane,  that  speak  from 
our  mouths,  those  anticks  garnish  in  our  col- 
ours. Is  it  not  strange  that  I,  to  whom  they 
all  have  been  beholding,  is  it  not  like  that  you 
to  whom  they  all  have  beene  beholding,  shall, 
were  ye  in  that  case  that  I  am  now,  be  both 
at  once  of  them  forsaken?  .  .  . 

"But  now  I  return  againe  to  you  three, 
knowing  my  miserie  is  to  you  no  news;  and 
let  me  heartily  intreate  you  to  be  warned  by 
my  harmes  .  .  .For  it  is  a  pittie  men  of 
such  rare  wits  should  be  subject  to  the  pleas- 
ures of  such  rude  groomes."  (actors). 

Those  biographers  and  critics  who  have 
written  concerning  Shakspere  and  Greene 
misapprehensively  compound  and  integrate 
letter  and  pamphlet.  It  should  be  made  clear 
that  Greene's  letter  to  his  fellow  poets  is  not 
an  integral  part  of  "Groats  Worth  of  Wit," 
though  appended  towards  the  end  of  this 
pamphlet.  The  letter  is  strikingly  personal 
and  impressive,  not  a  continuance  of  a  pamph- 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  307 

let  describing  the  folly  of  youth,  but  a  mere 
appendage  not  properly  constituting  a  portion 
of  it.  It  was  the  classical  commentator. 
Thomas  Tyrwhitt  (1730-85)  we  believe,  who 
first  made  current  the  groundless  opinion  that 
purports  to  identify  "Shakespeare"  as  the  one 
pointed  at,  but  most  all  recent  biographers  and 
commentators  state  as  a  proven  fact  that  Rob- 
ert Greene  was  the  first  to  bail  Shapespeare 
out  of  obscurity  by  the  "reprehensive  refer- 
ence" to  an  "upstart  crow,"  "Shake-scene." 
The  effect  of  conjectural  reading  is  to  raise  a 
tempest  of  depreciation  by  which  "Shake- 
speare's" biographers  and  commentators  have 
succeeded  in  handing  down  to  posterity 
Greene's  reputation  as  a  preposterous  combi- 
nation of  infamy  and  envy,  harping  with 
fiendish  delight  on  the  irregularities  and  de- 
fects of  Robert  Greene's  private  life,  which 
were  not  even  shadowed  in  his  writings.  The 
writings  of  Greene  "whose  pen  was  pure"  are 
exceptionally  clean.  Why  then  this  unmerited 
abuse  so  malignant  in  disposition  and  passion? 
We  answer  that  it  is  because  the  biographers 
of  "Shakespeare"  have  been  seduced  from  the 
truth  by  a  vagrant  conjecture  into  the  belief 
that  "Shakespeare"  was  the  object  and  recipi- 


308         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ent  of  Greene's  censure.  It  is  apparent  that 
the  statement  which  affirms  this  is  false,  and 
we  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  Robert 
Greene's  detractors  are  on  the  wrong  trail. 

Before  Tyrwhitt's  day  it  was  wholly  unsus- 
pected to  Shakespeare's  biographers,  editors 
and  commentators  even  by  what  Mr.  George 
Saintsbury  designates  as  "the  most  perilous 
process  of  conjecture"  to  what  contemporary 
person  Greene  alludes,  and  now  after  the  lapse 
of  more  than  three  hundred  years  after  date, 
there  is  no  real  evidence — guesswork,  pure 
and  undulterated.  When  Nicholas  Rowe,  the 
first  seventeenth  century  biographer  and  edi- 
tor, gave  his  edition  of  Shakespeare  to  the 
public  in  1709,  Greene's  letter  to  "the  gentle- 
men, his  quondam  acquaintance"  had  been  in 
print  for  118  years.  Nevertheless,  Rowe  does 
not  find  "Shakespeare"  "satirized  under  the 
name  Shake-scene." 

The  poet  Pope,  (1688-1744)  was  Shake- 
speare's second  editor,  but  does  not  find  Shake- 
speare's "literary  pretensions  ridiculed"  by 
Greene.  Lewis  Theobald,  the  third  editor, 
said  nothing  about  Greene's  "rancorous  at- 
tack" so  called  on  Shakespere. 

Sir    Thomas    Hanmer,     (1677-1746)     the 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  309 

fourth  editor  also  says  nothing  about  Shake- 
scene  as  an  allusion  to  Shakespeare,  or  that 
he  had  been  railed  at  by  Greene. 

In  1747,  Bishop  Warburton  produced  a  re- 
vised version  of  Pope's  edition.  The  Bishop 
failed  to  see  in  Greene's  "only  Shake-scene"  a 
denunciation  of  Shakespeare.  Dr.  Johnson, 
(1709-83)  the  sixth  editor  is  silent  in  regard 
to  this  tirade  so  styled  against  "Shakespeare." 
But  Tyrwhitt,  (1730-85)  in  guessing  that 
Shake-scene  is  "Shakespeare,"  gave  the  Strat- 
ford delusion  its  highest  flood,  for  his  random 
opinion  was  accepted  as  a  proven  fact  by  many 
Stratfordians.  We  find  the  names  of  Malone, 
Dyce,  and  Halliwell-Phillipps  among  the 
dead;  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  Mr.  Hamilton  Wright 
Mabie  and  the  Countess  de  Chambrun  among 
the  living.  Not  all  Stratfordians  hold  that 
^Shakespeare  was  Shake-scene,"  for  Mr. 
Fleay  and  Mr.  Castle  have  shown  that 
"Shakespeare"  cannot  be  "Shake-scene." 

But  Mr.  Lang  says  "only  one  such  success- 
ful practicising  actor-playwright  is  known  to 
us  at  this  date  (1592)  and  he  is  "Shakespeare." 
Unless  another  such  existed,  Greene  in  1592 
alludes  to  William  Shak  (&c)  as  a  player  and 
playwright." 


310         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

My  answer  is  that  another  such  did  exist  in 
1592.  In  the  list  of  names  before  me  given  by 
Miss  Phoebe  Sheavyn — "The  Literary  Pro- 
fession in  the  Elizabethan  Age"  (p.  94)  there 
are  as  many  as  nine  persons  who  combined  the 
two  professions,  the  "equality"  of  player  with 
authorship.  Her  list  includes  the  names  of 
Wilson,  Munday,  Rawley,  Peele  and  Field. 

And  it  seems  according  to  a  letter  (W.  P.— 
among  Henslowe's  papers  at  Dulwich  Col- 
lege) that  Peele  occasionally  trod  the  boards. 

Sir  G.  G.  Greenwood  writes,  "As  I  have 
shown  George  Peele  was  one  of  the  play- 
wrights addressed  by  Greene,  and  Peele  was 
a  successful  player  as  well  as  playwright,  and 
might  quite  truly  have  been  alluded  to,  both  as 
having  'facetious  grace  in  writing'  and  being 
'excellent  in  the  quality  he  professed'  that  is 
as  a  professional  actor." 

And  it  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  prove  that  at 
least  one  such  successful  practising  actor-play- 
wright is  known  to  us  at  this  date  (1592)  and 
;he  is  Robert  Wilson,  senior,  who  did  unite  the 
two  professions  as  a  player  and  playwright, 
who  collaborated  in  sixteen  plays,  and  has  one 
or  more  ascribed  to  his  sole  authorship. 

In  1598  a  partnership  was  carried  on  be- 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  311 

tween  Wilson,  Dekker,  Drayton  and  Chettle. 
He  was  also  a  frequent  collaborator  with 
Munday.  In  1598,  Meres  names  Wilson 
among  "our  best  for  comedy."  And  still  an- 
other tribute ry  comment.  In  1581,  Wilson, 
one  of  Lord  Leicester's  men  received  an  order 
for  a  play  which  included  "all  sorts  of  mur- 
ders, immorality  and  robberies." 

Robert  Wilson  was  a  famous  extemporising 
clown  actor;  he  was  frequently  called  for  after 
the  play  was  over,  when  he  performed  a  jig. 
He  had  license  to  introduce  his  own  additions 
in  rhyme  or  in  the  "swelling  bombast  of  a 
bragging  blank  verse,"  as  Nash  called  it. 

Richard  Tarlton  and  William  Kemp  were 
great  performers  in  interludes.  But  neither 
Tarlton  nor  Kemp  equalled  Wilson  as  an  au- 
thor. In  connection  with  extemporizing,  Wil- 
son's two  interludes,  "The  Three  Ladies  of 
London"  and  "The  Three  Lords  and  Three 
Ladies  of  London,"  are  excellent  examples  of 
his  remarkable  facility  as  an  improvising 
clown  player. 

According  to  Collier,  Wilson  was  not  only 
an  excellent  performer,  but  also  a  talented 
dramatist,  especially  renowned  for  his  ready 
repartee,  and  of  his  own  anonymity  says, 


312         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

"Loth  was  I  to  display  myself  to  the  world  but 
for  that  I  hope  to  dance  under  a  mask  and 
bluster  out  like  the  wind,  which,  though  every 
man  heareth  yet  none  can  in  sight  descrie." 

The  fantastic  tricks  and  foolery  of  the  ex- 
temporizing clowns  were  the  opprobrium  of 
the  public  playhouse.  Hamlet  felt  it  and 
spake  of  it  with  regret  in  a  well  known  pas- 
sage; "And  let  those  that  play  your  clowns 
speak  no  more  than  is  set  down  for  them;  for 
there  be  of  them  that  will  themselves  laugh  to 
set  on  some  quantity  of  barren  spectators  to 
laugh  too,  though  in  the  meantime,  some  nec- 
essary question  of  the  play  be  then  to  be  con- 
sidered :  that's  villianous  and  shows  a  most  pit- 
iful ambition  in  the  fool  that  uses  it."  (Ham- 
let, Act  III,  Scene  II). 

The  extempore  actors  referred  to  by  Ham- 
let were  Robert  Wilson  and  William  Kemp, 
or  clown  actors  of  their  own  clique,  who  ac- 
customed the  public  to  jigs  and  merriment  and 
were  the  delight  of  the  groundlings.  But  the 
improvising  clowns  proved  an  impediment  to 
the  development  of  higher  dramatic  composi- 
tion, and  were  deservedly  derided  as  "Shake- 


scene." 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  313 

But  nevertheless,  are  not  all  the  conditions 
of  the  problem  satisfied  by  Wilson's  identifi- 
cation with  Shake-scene,  a  hyphened  com- 
pound word,  which  is  used  as  equivalent  to 
the  performance  of  a  jig  dancer  upon  the  stage 
who  was  a  clown  actor  and  jester,  who  can 
bombast  out  his  own  improvising  in  blank 
verse  and  who  was  true  to  name — Shake-scene. 

So  may  not  Robert  Wilson,  senior,  be  ad- 
vanced for  Robert  Greene's  reproof  by  all 
persons  who  are  of  the  opinion  that  Shake- 
scene  was  both  actor  and  playwright.  Suppo- 
sition says  Kemp  also  wrote  pamphlets  and 
plays,  although  at  this  time  he  had  not  given 
his  first  and  only  work  to  the  press.  It  matters 
little  at  whom  Greene  aimed,  Kemp  or  Wil- 
son, so  long  as  Shakespeare  was  not  the  object 
of  the  aimer.  We  do  not  know  positively  who 
the  only  Shake-scene  was,  but  we  have  in  Wil- 
son a  good  Shake-scene,  and  a  good  "poet- 
ape."  "He  takes  up  all  makes,  each  man's  wit 
his  own." 

We  know  that  Wilson  was  able  to  do  all  the 
functions  of  Greene's  Shake-scene,  and  pos- 
sessed all  the  attributes  that  Chettle  claimed 
for  the  person  who  had  "factitious  grace  in 
writing."  Wilson,  however,  is  not  equal  to 


314         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

both  functions,  as  it  was  not  possible  for  any 
known  or  unknown  other  to  have  been,  for  if 
heir  to  an  opprobrious  name  (Shake-scene) 
he  cannot  be  the  recipient  of  Chettle's  com- 
mendation, for  his  uprightness  of  dealing  and 
his  "factitious  grace  in  writing"  even  if  Shake- 
scene  was  a  playwright-actor,  "poet-ape,"  still 
he  would  be  one  of  those  "puppets  as  Greene 
says  that  speak  from  our  mouths."  In  effect, 
Greene  is  saying  to  three  of  his  old  college 
chums,  trust  not  the  players  for  they  "will 
leave  you  all  in  the  lurch."  For  Robert  Wil- 
son and  Will  Kemp  are  now  both  extemporiz- 
ing their  own  recitative  composings  in  blank 
verse,  and  "their  jiggings  is  much  clapped  at 
on  the  stage,"  and  every  improvising  line  in 
blank  verse  applauded,  and  one  of  these 
"painted  monsters  supposes  he  is  as  well  able 
to  bombast  out  a  blank  verse  as  the  best  of  you, 
and  being  an  absolute  'Johannes  Factotum' 
(like  Bob  Wilson)  is  in  his  own  conceit,  the 
only  'Shake-scene'  (dance-scene)  in  a  coun- 
try." 

The  present  writer  is  of  the  opinion  that 
Kemp  and_ Wilson  are  about  equally  identifi- 
able with  Shake-scene,  for  the  true  import  of 
Greene's  words  about  an  upstart  crow  done  up 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  315 

in  a  player's  hide,  should  not  be  taken  serious- 
ly. Greene's  meaning  is  that  the  player,  beau- 
tified with  poet's  feathers  is  bragging  with  a 
view  to  self-commendation,  and  being  a  "fac- 
totum" like  all  the  other  clown  actors  and  jig 
dancers,  boasts  of  his  ability  to  bombast  out 
blank  verse  by  introducing  his  interpolated 
foolery  and  jiggery  while  the  play  is  in  action. 

Inasmuch  as  Shakespeare  had  never  been  a 
clown  player  and  jig  dancer,  his  identification 
with  an  approbrious  name  (Shake-scene) 
seems  to  me  impossible,  and  as  the  partizans 
of  Shakespeare  agree  that  Shakespeare  was 
not  one  of  Greene's  quondam  acquaintances 
"that  spend  their  wits  in  making  plays"  he 
coculd  not  have  been  the  recipient  of  Chet- 
tle's  approbation,  and  is,  of  course,  excluded, 
for  Greene's  letter  was  not  written  to  him, 
therefore  Chettle  offers  no  apology  to  Shake- 
speare. 

Young  Hamlet  and  young  Greene  are  in 
perfect  accord  in  their  estimate  of  the 
"groundlings  who  for  the  most  part  are  cap- 
able of  nothing  but  dum-shows  and  noise." 
And  "those  puppets  also  that  speak  from  our 
mouths,  those  apes  garnished  in  our  colors," 
for  Hamlet  is  scarcely  less  censorious  when 


316         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

galled  as  is  shown  by  his  bitter  reproof  of  the 
extempore  clown  players  for  improvising  mat- 
ter of  their  own  in  rhyme  or  blank  verse  into 
the  poet's  plays.  We  have  already  seen  that 
Hamlet,  Prince  of  Denmark,  regards  the  ex- 
temporizing clown  and  jig  dancer  as  an  inter- 
loper as  to  dramatic  composition,  characteriz- 
ing the  additions  of  the  improvising  clown  as 
"villianous  and  shows  a  most  pitiful  ambition 
in  the  fool  that  uses  it." 

Our  prime  object  is  to  establish  Wilson's 
and  Kemp's  eligibility  as  claimants  for 
Greene's  opprobrious  "Shake-scene,"  thus 
barring  out  Shakespeare. 

The  prominence  of  Robert  Greene's  name 
in  the  manuals  of  our  literature  is  due  in  the 
main  to  the  kind  of  lies  his  critics  tell  about 
him  in  connection  with  "Groatworth  Shake- 
Scene"  allusion. 

There  now  arises  the  crucial  inquiry  con- 
cerning the  charge  that  Shakespeare  was  thus 
lampooned  in  1592  by  Robert  Greene  in  his 
celebrated  address  to  those  gentlemen  of  his 
own  fellowship  that  spend  their  wits  making 
plays — inferentially,  Marlowe,  Nash  and 
Peek.  The  exigency  of  the  case  demands,  in 
the  opinion  of  Shakespeare's  modern  biog- 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  317 

raphers,  the  appropriation  of  Greene's  re- 
proachful reference  to  Shakespeare  (though 
no  name  is  mentioned.)  The  fanciful  biog- 
raphers of  Shakspere  rely  on  these  words  of 
reproof  and  censure  as  being  the  initial  notice 
of  his  worth  and  work  which  was  to  lift  him 
from  his  place  of  obscurity  in  the  year  1592. 
The  meaning  of  Greene's  words  in  the  idiom 
of  the  times,  as  in  their  contextural  and  nat- 
ural sense,  yield  nothing  which  is  confirma- 
tory of  such  contention;  for  "dance"  is  con- 
noted under  the  term  "shake,"  answering  to 
the  first  element  in  "Shake-scene,"  which  in 
the  old  meaning  meant  "dance,"  generic  for 
quick  action;  and  "scene"  meant  "stage"  for 
the  theaters  were  then  in  a  state  of  absolute 
nudity — in  other  words,  "Shake-scene"  meant 
a  dancing  performance  upon  the  stage.  In  the 
plain  unobtrusive  language  of  our  day,  as  well 
as  in  Elizabethan  English,  the  word  "shake" 
—the  first  syllable  in  "Shake-scene"  is  inter- 
changeable with  "dance,"  and,  when  given  a 
specialized  meaning  with  a  view  to  theatrical 
matters  in  the  year  1592,  with  Kemp  and 
Shakespeare  claimants  for  Greene's  reproof, 
who  could  doubt  that  the  name  which  was  so 
loudly  acclaimed  is  identifiable  with  the  spec- 


318         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

tacular  luminay  of  the  times,  Will  Kemp,  if 
Robert  Wilson  was  not? 

Greene  says,  "In  this  I  might  insert  two 
more  that  boath  have  writ  against  these  buck- 
ram gentlemen."  Can  these  be  identified? 
They  cannot  for  there  are  no  hints  to  supply  a 
clue.  But  Mr.  Fleay  makes  a  guess  which 
identifies  the  two  as  Wilson  and  Kyd;  the  for- 
mer may  have  been  one  of  the  two  "I  might 
insert,"  but  Kyd  is  barred  by  the  fact  that  he 
had  quit  playwriting  as  early  as  1589  "to  leape 
into  a  new  occupation."  As  Nash  in  1589  puts 
it,  he  was  in  the  service  of  a  certain  lord,  (un- 
named). We  know  that  Lodge  had  also 
thrown  up  play-making  for  in  1859  he  vowed 
to  write  no  more  for  the  public  playhouse, 
Greene  following  suit  probably  soon  after.  At 
all  events  Kyd  was  not  the  object  of  the 
Groatsworth  reference,  he  being  no  longer 
dependent  on  public  stage  hack  work  for  a 
livelihood. 

Thomas  Kyd  (1558-1594)  was  educated  at 
Merchant  Taylor's  School,  a  fellow  student 
with  Edmund  Spenser.  Marlowe  and  Kyd 
were  chums,  at  one  time  room-mates,  helpful 
to  each  other  perhaps  in  making  plays,  for 
Kyd  excelled  his  more  gifted  and  brilliant  as- 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  319 

sociate  in  plot  construction  and  in  surprising 
situations,  but  baneful  to  each  other  as  cham- 
bermates.  For  in  consequence  of  this  intimacy 
the  unfortunate  Kyd  was  charged  with  athe- 
ism, owing  to  the  discovery  of  a  Theistic  or 
Unitarian  pamphlet  among  his  papers,  and  is 
put  to  the  torture  in  Bridewell. 

Concerning  the  incriminating  document, 
Kyd  in  writing  to  the  Lord  Keeper  (Sir  John 
Puckering),  says, — "Some  occasion  of  our 
wryting  in  one  chamber  two  years  synce 
(1591)  some  fragments  of  a  disputation  *  *  * 
affirmed  by  Marlowe  to  be  his  were  shufled 
'with  some  of  myne  (unknown  to  me)."  But 
the  informers  called  "State  decipherers," 
while  rummaging  amongst  these  waste  and 
idle  papers  for  compromising  documents  that 
concerned  the  State  was  found  the  "disputa- 
tion," in  which  the  writer's  profession  of  faith 
is  summed  up  in  the  words, — "I  call  that  true 
religion  which  instructeth  man's  minds  with 
right  faith  and  worthy  opinion  of  God,  and  I 
•rail  that  right  faith  which  doth  creddit  and 
believe  that  of  God  which  the  Scriptures  do 
testify." 

The  document  is  not  atheistic  but  theistic, 
imbued  with  Socinianism.  The  writer  rejects 


320         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  diety  of  Christ, 
but  holds  to  the  Unitarian  or  Socinian  faith 
as  held  by  Joseph  Priestly,  who  made  the 
epoch-making  discovery  of  oxygen ;  the  relig- 
ion of  William  Ellery  Channing  and  Thomas 
Star  King,  and  their  present  representatives. 

Kyd  was  arrested  on  suspicion  May  12, 
1593,  of  being  guilty  of  a  libel  that  concerned 
the  State;  "some  outcast  Ishmael,"  to  use  his 
own  expression,  puts  authority  upon  the  scent, 
so  Kyd's  study  was  visited  but  the  authorities 
failed  to  find  the  libel  that  concerned  the 
State.  Instead  was  found  an  unorthodox  pa- 
per which  Kyd  alleged  to  have  been  the  prop- 
erty of  Marlowe,  which  was  regarded  as 
prlma  facie  evidence  of  the  "deadlie  thing"- 
atheism. 

A  week  after  his  arrest  on  May  18,  1593, 
the  Privy  Council  issued  the  warrant  for  the 
arrest  of  Marlowe.  In  the  M.  S.  Register  of 
the  Privy  Council  we  read, — "This  day  (May 
20)  Ch.  Marley  of  London,  gent,  being  sent 
for  by  warrant  from  their  Lordships  hath  en- 
tered his  appearance  accordinglie,  for  his  in- 
demnity therein  and  is  commanded  to  give  his 
daily  attendance  on  their  Lordship  till  he 
shall  be  licensed  to  the  contrarie." 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  UUi 

How  long  Kyd  remained  in  prison  after  his 
arrest  on  May  12,  1593,  we  do  not  know;  how- 
ever, the  High  Commission  is  much  alarmed 
at  the  spread  of  atheism.  The  "State  deciph- 
erers," gorged  with  perjury,  have  scented 
Kyd,  who  in  self-defense  tarnished  his  own 
fame  by  accusing  Marlowe  of  heresy  and  blas- 
phemy, an  act  of  fear  for  which  the  modern 
world  has  no  pardon. 

We  now  direct  the  attention  of  the  reader 
specifically  to  the  arrogant  and  boastful  com- 
edian, Will  Kemp.  This  man,  according  to 
Robert  Greene's  view,  was  the  personification 
of  everything  detestable  in  the  actor — whose 
profession  he  despised.  We  think  the  biog- 
raphers and  commentators  have  mistaken  the 
spectacularity  of  Will  Kemp  for  the  rising 
sun  of  "Shakespeare,"  the  author  poet.  In 
the  closing  years  of  the  sixteenth,  and  the  early 
years  of  the  seventeenth  century,  there  lived 
in  London  the  most  spectacular  comic  actor 
and  clown  of  his  day,  the  greatest  "Shake- 
scene"  or  dance-scene  of  his  generation,  Wil- 
liam Kemp,  the  worthy  successor  of  Dick 
Tarlton.  He  had  a  continental  reputation  in 
1S89.  This  year  also  Nash  dedicated  to  Kemp 


322         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

one  of  his  attacks  upon  Martin  Marpelate  en- 
titled "An  Almond  for  a  Parrot.'' 

There  is  ample  contemporary  evidence  that 
Kemp  was  the  greatest  comic  actor  of  his  time 
in  England,  and  his  notoriety  as  a  morris-dan- 
cer was  so  great  that  his  journeyings  were 
called  dances.  He  was  the  court  favorite,  fam- 
ous for  his  improvisation,  and  loved  by  the 
public,  but  hated  by  academic  play-writers 
and  ridiculed  by  ballad-makers.  Kemp,  in 
giving  his  first  pamphlet  "The  Nine  Days' 
Wonder"  to  the  press  in  1599,  turned  upon  his 
enemies  and  in  retaliation  called  them  "Shake- 
rags,"  which  he  used  derisively  and  as  con- 
tumeliously  as  Greene  had  used  "Shake- 
scene."  The  use  of  the  word  "Shake-rags"  by 
Kemp  in  his  first  and  only  published  work  is 
prima-facie  evidence  that  he  also  made  use  of 
the  same  term,  orally  and  in  his  usual  acrim- 
onious manner,  either  against  Greene,  or  those 
of  his  fellowship.  The  first  element  in  the 
compound  words  "Shake-scene"  and  "Shake- 
rags"  is  governed  by  the  same  general  law  of 
movement  or  rhythmic  action  exemplified  in 
dancing  and  rhyme  ry.  In  1640  Richard 
Brown  in  his  "Antipodes"  refers  to  the  prac- 
tice of  jesters,  in  the  days  of  Tarlton  and 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  3J3 

Kemp,  of  introducing  their  own  wit  into  poets' 
plays.  "Kemp,  writing  in  1600,  asserts  that 
he  spent  his  life  in  mad  jigs  and  merry  jests," 
although  he  was  entrusted  with  many  leading 
parts  in  farce  or  broad  comedy."  His  danc- 
ing of  jigs  at  the  close  of  a  play  gave  him  his 
chief  popularity.  "The  jigs  were  performed 
to  musical  accompaniment  and  included  the 
singing  of  comic  words.  One  or  two  actors  at 
times  supported  Kemp  in  his  entertainment, 
dancing  and  singing  with  him.  Some  exam- 
ples of  the  music  to  which  Kemp  danced  are 
preserved  in  a  manuscript  collection  of  John 
Dowland  now  in  the  library  of  Cambridge 
University." 

"The  words  were,  doubtless,  often  impro- 
vised at  the  moment,  but,  on  occasions,  they 
were  written  out  and  published.  The  Station- 
ers Register  contains  licenses  for  the  publica- 
tion of  at  least  four  sets  of  words  for  the  jigs 
in  which  Kemp  was  the  chief  performer." 

By  way  of  confirmation,  we  will  now  quote 
in  part,  from  the  "Camden  Society  Papers," 
scenes  in  the  life  of  Will  Kemp. 

According  to  Henslowe's  Diary,  Will 
Kemp  was  on  June  15th,  1592,  a  member  of 
the  company  of  the  Lord  Strange  players  un- 


324         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

der  Henslowe  and  Alleyn,  playing  a  principal 
comic  part  in  the  "Knack  to  Know  a 
Knave,"  and  introducing  into  it  what  is  called 
on  the  title  page  his  "Applauded  Merri- 
ments," a  technical  term  for  a  piece  of  theatri- 
cal buffoonery.  In  1593  Nash  warned  Gab- 
riel Harvey  "lest  Will  Kemp  should  make  a 
merriment  of  him." 

As  early  as  1586,  Kemp  was  a  member  of  a 
company  of  great  importance  which  had  ar- 
rived at  Elsinore  where  the  king  held  court. 
He  remained  two  months  in  Denmark,  and 
received  a  larger  amount  of  board  money  than 
his  fellow  actors.  In  a  letter  of  Sir  Phillip 
Sidney,  dated  Utrecht,  March  24th,  1586,  he 
says:  "I  sent  you  a  letter  by  Will  (Kemp), 
my  Lord  Leicester's  jesting  player." 

It  was  after  his  return  from  these  foreign 
expeditions  that  we  find  Kemp  uniting  his  ex- 
ertions with  those  of  Alleyn  at  the  Rose  and 
Fortune  theatres,  as  Prince  Henry's  servants. 
During  this  whole  period  from  his  return  in 
1586  from  Denmark,  to  the  year  1598,  he  did 
not  stay  uninterruptedly  at  the  theatres  of  the 
Burbages.  From  February  19th  to  June  22nd, 
1592,  a  part  of  Lord  Leicester's  company 
played  under  Henslowe  and  Alleyn.  In  1602, 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  325 

Kemp  was  again  in  London,  acting  under 
Henslowe  and  Alleyn  as  one  of  the  Earl  of 
Worcester's  men.  We  gather  from  Henslovve's 
diary  that  on  March  10th,  he  borrowed  in 
ready  money  twenty  shillings. 

Kemp  was  a  very  popular  performer  as 
early  as  1589.  We  shall  see  hereafter  that  he, 
following  the  example  of  Tarlton,  was  in  the 
habit  of  extemporizing  and  introducing  mat- 
ter of  his  own  that  has  not  come  down  to  us. 
"Let  those  that  play  your  clowns  speak  no 
more  than  is  set  down  for  them."  (Hamlet, 
Act  III,  Scene  II).  These  words  were  aimed 
at  Kemp,  or  one  of  his  school,  and  it  was  about 
this  date,  according  to  Henslowe's  Diary,  that 
Kemp  went  over  from  the  Lord  Chamberlain 
to  the  Lord  Nottingham  players.  The  most 
important  duty  of  the  clown  was  not  to  appear 
in  the  play  itself,  but  to  sing  and  dance  his  jig 
at  the  end  of  it,  even  after  a  tragedy,  in  order 
to  soften  the  painful  impression.  (Camden  So- 
ciety Papers). 

Kemp's  jig  of  "The  Kitchen  Stuff  Woman" 
was  a  screaming  farce  of  rude  verses,  some 
spoken,  others  sung;  of  good  and  bad  witti- 
cism; of  extravagant  acting  and  dancing.  In 
the  art  of  comic  dancing  Kemp  was  immoder- 


326         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ately  loved  and  admired.  He  paid  profes- 
sional visits  to  all  the  German  and  Italian 
courts,  and  was  even  summoned  to  dance  his 
Morris-dance  before  the  Emperor  Rudolph 
himself  at  Augsburg. 

Kemp  combined  shrewdness  with  his  rough 
manner.  With  a  view  to  extending  his  repu- 
tation and  his  profits,  he  announced  in  1599, 
his  intention  of  dancing  a  Morris-dance  from 
London  to  Norwich ;  but  to  his  annoyance,  ev- 
ery inaccurate  report  of  his  gambols  was 
hawked  about  in  publication  at  the  time  by 
book-sellers  or  ballad-makers,  like  " Kemp's 
farewell  to  the  tune  of  Kerry  Merry  Buff." 

In  order  to  check  the  circulation  of  false- 
hood, Kemp  offered,  he  tells  us,  his  first 
pamphlet  to  the  press  (though  at  the  time  he 
was  thought  to  have  had  a  hand  in  printing  the 
Anti  Morelist  plays  and  pamphlets — five 
pieces  erroneously  attributed  to  his  pen).  The 
only  copy  known  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library. 
The  title  ran  " Kemp's  Nine  Days  Wonder," 
the  wonder  referred  to  being  performed  in  a 
dance  from  London  to  Norwich  then  written 
by  himself  to  satisfy  his  friends.  A  woodcut 
on  the  title  page  shows  Kemp  in  elaborate  cos- 
tume with  bells  about  his  knees  dancing  to  the 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  327 

accompaniment  of  a  drum  and  tabor,  which  a 
man  at  his  side  is  playing.     This  pamphlet 


William  Kemp  Dancing  the  Morris. 

was  entered  in  the  Stationers  Book,  April  22, 
1600.  The  dedicatory  salutation  to  Anna 
Fritton,  one  of  her  Majesty's  maids  of  honor, 
shows  us  how  arrogant  and  conceited  he  must 
have  been. 

Kemp  started  at  seven  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing on  the  first  Monday  in  Lent,  the  starting 
point  being  in  front  of  the  Lord  Mayor's 
house,  and  half  London  was  astir  to  see  the  be- 
ginning of  the  great  exploit.  His  suite  con- 
sisted of  his  taborer,  Thomas  Sly;  his  servant, 
William  Bee;  and  his  overseer  or  umpire, 
George  Sprat,  who  was  to  see  that  everything 
was  performed  according  to  promise.  Accord- 


328         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

ing  to  custom,  he  put  out  a  sum  of  money  be- 
fore his  departure  on  condition  of  receiving 
thrice  the  amount  on  his  safe  return.  His  own 
fatigue  caused  him  many  delays  and  he  did 
not  arrive  in  Norwich  until  twenty-three  days 
after  his  departure.  He  spent  only  nine  days 
in  actual  dancing  on  the  road. 

Kemp  himself  on  this  occasion  contributed 
nothing  to  the  music  except  the  sound  of  the 
bells,  which  were  attached  to  his  gaiters.  In 
Norwich,  thousands  waited  to  receive  him  in 
the  open  market-place  with  an  official  concert. 
Kemp,  as  guest  of  the  town,  was  entertained  at 
its  expense  and  received  handsome  presents 
from  the  Mayor  who  arranged  a  triumphal 
entry  for  him.  The  freedom  of  the  Mer- 
chants' Adventures  Company  was  also  con- 
ferred upon  him,  thereby  assuring  him  a 
share  in  the  yearly  income  to  the  amount  of 
forty  shillings — a  pension  for  life.  The  very 
buckskins  in  which  he  performed  his  dance 
was  nailed  to  the  wall  in  the  Norwich  Guild 
Hall  and  preserved  in  perpetual  memory  of 
the  exploit,  which  was  long  remembered  in 
popular  literature. 

In  an  epilogue,  Kemp  announced  that  he 
was  shortly  "to  set  forward  as  merily  as  I 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  329 

may,  whither,  I  myself  know  not,"  and  beg- 
ged ballad  makers  to  abstain  from  disseminat- 
ing lying  statements  about  him.  Kemp's 
humble  request  to  the  impudent  generation 
of  ballad  makers,  as  he  terms  them,  reads  in 
part:  "My  notable  Shake-rags,  the  effect  of 
my  suit  is  discovered  in  the  title  of  my  sup- 
plication, but  for  your  better  understanding 
for  that  I  know  you  to  be  a  sort  of  witless  bet- 
tle-heads  that  can  understand  nothing  but 
that  is  knocked  into  your  scalp;  so  farewell, 
and  crosse  me  no  more  with  thy  rabble  of 
bold  rhymes,  lest  at  my  return  I  set  a  crosse 
on  thy  forehead  that  all  men  may  know  that 
for  a  fool."  It  seems  certain  that  Kemp  kept 
his  word  in  exhibiting  his  dancing  powers  on 
the  continent.  In  Week's  "Ayers"  (1688), 
mention  is  made  of  Kemp's  skipping  into 
France.  A  ballad  entitled,  "An  Excellent 
New  Medley"  (dated  about  1600),  refers  to 
his  returning  from  Rome.  In  the  Eliza- 
bethan play,  "Jack  Drum's  Entertainment" 
(1616),  however,  there  is  introduced  a  song 
to  which  Kemp's  morris  dance  is  performed. 
Heywood,  writing  at  this  period  in  his 
"Apology  for  Actors"  (1612),  says  Will 
Kemp  was  a  comic  actor  of  high  reputation, 


330         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

as  well  in  the  favor  of  Her  Majesty  as  in 
the  opinion  of  the  general  audience. 

There  is  also  a  tribute  from  the  pen  of 
Richard  Rathway  (1618);  and  Ben  Jonson, 
William  Rowley  and  John  Marston  make 
mention  of  him. 

These  facts  and  concurring  events  in  the 
life  of  Robert  Wilson  and  Will  Kemp,  con- 
vince us  that  Shakespeare  was  not,  and  that 
Kemp  or  Wilson  was  the  person  at  whom 
Greene  leveled  his  satire,  by  bearing  witness 
to  their  extemporizing  power  and  haughty 
and  insolent  demeanor  in  introducing  im- 
provisations and  interpolations  of  their  "own 
wit  into  poet's  plays." 

From  the  foregoing,  it  is  evident  that,  at  the 
time  the  letter  was  written,  Will  Kemp  en- 
joyed an  unequaled  and  wide-spread  notoriety, 
and  transient  fame,  extending  not  only 
throughout  England,  but  into  foreign  coun- 
tries as  well. 

And  further,  by  reason  of  his  great 
prominence,  in  a  calling  which  Greene 
loathed,  and  despised,  he  was  brought  easily 
within  the  range  of  the  latter's  contemptuous 
designation;  of  "upstart  crow"  and  "Shake- 


scene." 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  331 

We  have  now  reached  the  crucial  matter 
of  the  address  which,  according  to  the  specu- 
lative opinion  of  many  of  Shakespeare's 
biographers,  contains  all  the  words  and 
sentences  which  they  hope,  when  racked,  may 
be  made  to  yield  support  to  their  tramp  con- 
jecture that  Robert  Greene  Was  the  first  to 
discover  Shakspeare  as  a  writer  of  plays,  or 
the  amendor  of  the  works  of  other  poets.  The 
identifiable  words,  so  called,  are  contained 
in  the  following  sentences:  "Yes,  trust  them 
not;  for  there  is  an  upstart  crow,  beautified 
with  our  feathers,  that,  with  his  Tygers  heart 
wrapt  in  a  Player's  hide." 

"Upstart  crow"  in  Elizabethan  English, 
meant  in  general  one  who  assumed  a  lofty  or 
arrogant  tone,  a  bragging,  boastful,  swaggerer 
suddenly  raised  to  prominence  and  power,  as 
was  both  Kemp  and  Wilson  after  the  death 
of  Richard  Tarlton  (1589).  In  an  epistle 
prefixed  to  Greene's  "Arcadia"  (1587), 
Thomas  Nash  speaks  of  actors  "as  a  company 
of  taffaty  fools  with  their  feathers;"  and  "The 
players  decked  with  poets'  feathers  like 
Aesop's  crow"  (R-B)  and  again,  "That  with 
his  Tyger's  heart  wrapt  in  a  player's  hide." 
Tiger  in  the  plain  language  of  the  day  stood 


332         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

for  bully,  a  noisy  insolent  man,  who  habitu- 
ally sought  to  overbear  by  clamors,  or  by 
threats.  These  characteristics  are  identifiable 
with  Kemp;  but  the  biographers  of  Shakes- 
peare are  content  to  conjecture  that  Robert 
Greene's  parody  on  the  line,  Oh  Tygers  heart 
wrapt  in  a  woman's  hide"  is  not  only  a  con- 
tumelious reference  to  actor,  William  Shaks- 
pere,  but  also  a  declaration  of  his  authorial 
integrity  by  their  assignment  of  "Henry  VI, 
Part  III,"  which  was  in  action  at  the  "Rose," 
when  Greene's  celebrated  address  was  written. 

There  is  prlma-facle  evidence  that  Greene 
authored  the  line,  which  he  semi-parodied  in 
the  address,  which  is  found  in  two  places.  It 
appears  in  its  initial  form,  "Oh  Tygers  heart 
wrapt  in  a  serpent's  hide"  in  the  play  called 
"The  Tragedy  of  Richard,  Duke  of"  York," 
and  "The  Death  of  Good  King  Henry  the 
Sixth,"  and  later  with  "woman,"  substituted 
for  "serpent;"  again,  it  is  found  in  the  third 
part  of  "Henry  VI,"  founded  on  the  true 
tragedy,  which  was  acted  by  Lord  Pembroke's 
company,  of  which,  as  Nash  tells  us,  Greene 
was  chief  agent,  and  for  which  he  wrote  more 
than  four  other  plays.  "Henry  VI,  Part  III," 
is  generally  admitted  to  be  the  work  of 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  333 

Greene,  Marlowe  and  perhaps  Peek. 
Furthermore,  the  catchwords  in  the  lines 
parodied  betray  their  author,  which  is  a  con- 
firmatory fact.  To  borrow  a  citation  from  the 
pages  of  Dr.  A.  Grosart,  "Every  one  who 
knows  his  Greene,  knows  that  over  and  over 
again  he  returns  on  anything  of  his  that 
'caught  on,  sometimes  abridging  and  some- 
times expanding." 

And  in  semi-parodying  his  own  lines  wrapt 
"Tygers  heart"  in  several  kinds  of  hides.  "A 
passage  to  his  partiality  could  not  appear  too 
often."  It  was  "Shake-scene"  (Kemp  or  Wil- 
ton) the  improvising  jig-dancer  with  his 
"Tygers  heart  wrapped  in  a  player's  hide," 
who  bombasted  orally  his  own  improvisations 
and  interpolations  out  in  blank  verse;  there- 
fore not  necessarily  a  Playwright-Actor,  but 
a  brawling  jaw-smith  whom  Greene  wanted 
to  hit. 

In  their  great  desire  to  discover  Shakspere 
as  the  author,  the  words  "bombast  out  in 
blank  verse,"  are  seized  upon  by  Shakes- 
peare's commentators  with  evident  greediness. 
But  these  words  yield  nothing  in  support  of 
author-craft,  for  bombast  or  bombastry,  in  the 
idiom  of  the  time,  stood  for  high-sounding 


334        SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

words  which  might  have  proceeded  from  the 
mouth  of  a  buffoon,  clown,  jester,  mounte- 
bank or  actor,  whose  profession  was  to  amuse 
spectators  by  low  antics  and  tricks,  and  whose 
improvisations  and  extemporizings  were  des- 
titute of  rhyme,  but  possessed  of  a  musical 
rhythm  called  "blank  verse."  The  words 
"blank  verse"  were  doubtless  intended  for  the 
ear  of  Marlowe,  the  great  innovator,  who  was 
thus  reminded  that  the  notorius  jig  dancer 
and  clown,  Bob  Wilson  or  Will  Kemp,  de- 
claimed their  own  improvisation  and  inter- 
polations in  "blank  verse,"  and  was  an  abso- 
lute "Johannes  Factotum  in  his  own  con- 
ceit"— that  is,  a  person  employed  to  do  many 
things.  Who  could  do  more  "in  his  own  con- 
ceit" than  Kemp,  who  spent  his  life  in  mad 
jigs,  as  he  says?  Who  but  Kemp,  the  chief 
actor  in  the  low  comedy  scenes,  who  angered 
the  acedemic  play-writers  by  introducing  "his 
own  wit  into  their  plays  and  make  a  merri- 
ment of  them?" 

Greene's  address  to  his  felow  playmakers 
does  not  convey  nor  give  color  to,  nor  the 
slightest  circumstances  for,  the  conjecture 
that  "Shakespeare's  authorial  career  had  been 
begun  as  the  amender  of  other  poet's  plays 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  335 

anterior  to  the  putative  authorship  of  "Venus 
and  Adonis." 

Halliwell-Phillips,  the  most  indefatigable 
and  reliable  member  of  the  Congress  of 
Speculative  Biographers,  says  that  not  one 
such  play  has  been  found  revised,  or  amended, 
by  Shakespeare  in  his  early  career.  Still  in 
their  extremity,  Shakespeare's  commentators 
give  hospitality  to  stupid  conjectures  that  are 
not  reasonable  inference  from  concurrent 
facts,  and  construe  Greene's  censure  of  Kemp 
or  Wilson  (inferentially)  as  the  first  literary 
notice  of  "Shakespeare."  It  shows,  without 
proof,  an  irrepressible  desire  to  confer  author- 
ship upon  Shakspere,  the  Stratford  player. 

The  Shakespeare  votaries  cannot  point  to 
a  single  word,  or  sentence,  in  this  celebrated 
address  of  Robert  Greene  which  connects  the 
contumelious  name  "Shaks-scene"  (dance- 
scene)  with  the  characteristics  of  either  the 
true,  or  the  traditional,  Shakspere. 

The  biographers  of  Shakespeare  never  grow 
weary  of  charging  Robert  Greene  with  pro- 
fessional jealousy  and  envy.  The  charge  has 
no  argumentative  value,  even  if  granting 
Shakspere's  early  productivity  as  a  play- 
maker,  or  the  amender  of  the  works  of  other 


336         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

men,  for  Greene's  activities  ran  in  other 
lines;  play-making  was  of  minor  importance, 
a  sort  of  by-production  of  his  resourceful  and 
versatile  pen.  The  biographers  of  Shakes- 
peare are  unfortunate  in  having  taken  on  this 
impression,  because  there  is  prima-facie  evi- 
dence that  Greene  had  forsworn  writing  for 
the  stage  a  considerable  time  before  the  letter 
was  written;  thus  he  followed  his  friend 
Lodge,  who  in  1589  "vows  to  write  no  more 
of  that  whence  shame  doth  grow."  Greene 
was  a  writer  distinguished  in  several  different 
directions. 

The  biographers  and  commentators,  agree- 
ing in  their  asperities,  charge  Robert  Greene 
with  envy,  basing  it  conjecturally  on  the  as- 
sumption of  Shakspere's  proficiency  as  $ 
drama-maker,  notwithstanding  the  sincere  and 
earnest  words  contained  in  his  most  pathetic 
letter,  addressed  to  three  friends,  in  which 
he  counsels  them  to  give  up  play  writing, 
which  he  regarded  as  degrading,  placing  their 
very  necessities  in  the  power  of  grasping 
shareholding  actors,  and  rendering  it  no 
longer  a  fit  occupation  for  gentlemen.  They 
fail  to  see  the  dying  should  be  granted  im- 
munity from  this  ignoble  and  base  passion. 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  337 

Our  own  rule  of  law  admits  as  good  evidence 
the  testimony  of  a  man  who  believes  himself 
to  be  dying,  and  so  the  letter  states,  "desirous 
that  you  should  live  though  himself  be  dy- 
ing." 

Robert  Greene's  charge  against  "upstart 
crow"  stands  unshaken;  Henry  Chettle,  the 
hack  writer,  and  self-admitted  transcriber  of 
the  letter,  does  not  retract  Greene's  statement. 
He  denies  nothing  on  behalf  of  an  "upstart 
crow,"  whoever  he  was,  for  the  author  of 
kind  "Hearts  Dreams,"  does  not  identify 
"Shake-scene"  (dance-scene)  with  Shake- 
speare, who  was  not  one  of  those  who  took  of- 
fense. It  is  expressly  stated  that  there  were 
two  of  the  three  fellow  dramatists,  addressed 
by  Greene  (Marlowe,  Nash  and  Peele). 

Still  we  are  told  by  Shakespearean  writers 
that  the  dying  genius  was  pained  at  witness- 
ing the  proficiency  of  another  in  the  very  ac- 
tivity (play-making)  which  he  had  come  to 
regard  as  congruous  with  strolling  vagabond- 
ism. He  enjoined  his  friends  to  seek  better 
masters,  "for  it  is  a  pittie  men  of  such  rare 
wit  should  be  subject  to  the  pleasure  of  such 
rude  groomes,"  'painted  monsters,  apes,  burrs, 
peasants,  puppets,"  not  playmakers,  but  ac- 


338         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL,  PHASE 

tors,  who  had  been  beholden  to  him  and  his 
fellow  play-makers,  whom  he  addressed. 

There  is  another  aspect  in  which  the  charge 
of  professional  jealousy  presents  itself  to  the 
mind  of  the  reader;  those  who  covet  that 
which  another  possesses,  or  envies  success, 
popularity  or  fortune.  To  charge  Greene 
with  envy  is  most  uncharitable  by  reason  of 
his  versatility.  Now  what  was  there  in  the 
possession  of  William  Shakspere  in  1592  that 
could  have  awakened  in  the  mind  of  Robert 
Greene  so  base  a  passion  as  envy?  The  name 
Shakspere  or  Shakespeare  had  no  commercial 
value  in  1592,  for  the  Shakspere  of  the  stage 
is  described  many  years  after  this  date  as 
merely  a  uman  player"  and  "a  deserving  man." 
Note  this  admission  by  Dr.  Ingleby:  "Assur- 
edly no  one  during  the  century  had  any  sus- 
picion that  the  genius  of  Shakespeare  was 
unique.  His  immediate  contemporaries  ex- 
pressed no  great  admiration  for  either  him,  or 
his  works."  There  is  not  a  particle  of  evi- 
dence to  show  that  Robert  Greene  was  envious 
of  any  writer  of  his  time;  nor  had  he  cause 
to  be ;  but  the  way  his  contemporaries  and  suc- 
cessors robbed  and  plundered  him  proves  the 
reverse  to  be  true. 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  33'J 

"Nay,  more,  the  men  that  so  eclipst 

his  fame, 

Purloynd  his  plumes,  can  they  deny 
the  same?" 

The  fact  is,  "Shakespeare"  the  author, 
passed  through  and  out  of  life  without  hav- 
ing attained  the  distinction,  or  celebrity,  won 
by  Greene  in  his  brief  career  of  but  nine  short 
years.  The  more  truthful  of  Shakespeare's 
biographers  concede  that  the  subject  of  their 
memoirs  was  not,  in  his  day,  highly  regarded, 
and  that  his  obscurity  in  1592  is  obvious. 
There  was  not  the  least  danger  of  the  author 
of  "Hamlet,"  "driving  to  penury"  the  dean 
of  English  novelists,  Robert  Greene,  who  was 
supreme  in  prose  romance,  a  species  of  litera- 
ture which  appealed  to  the  better  class  of 
the  reading  public.  Rival-hating  envy! 
Robert  Greene  cannot  be  brought  within  the 
scope  of  such  a  charge,  for  in  1592,  he  was 
not  striving  to  obtain  the  same  object  which 
play  writers  were  pursuing. 

The  fame  of  Robert  Greene  during  his  life- 
time eclipsed  that  of  his  contemporaries.  "He 
was,  in  fact,  the  popular  author  of  the  day. 
His  contemporaries  applauded  the  facility 
with  which  he  turned  his  talent  to  account." 


340         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

"In  a  night  and  a  day,"  says  Nash,  "would 
he  have  yearked  up  a  pamphlet  as  well  as  in 
seven  years,  and  glad  was  that  printer  that 
might  be  so  blest  to  pay  him  dear  for  the  very 
dregs  of  his  wit."  Even  Ben  Jonson,  "the 
greatest  man  of  the  last  age,"  according  to 
Dryden,  had  no  such  assurance  if  we  may 
judge  from  his  own  account  of  his  literary 
life,  which  shows  that  he  had  to  struggle  for 
a  subsistence,  as  no  printer  was  found  glad, 
or  felt  himself  blest,  to  pay  him  dear  for  the 
cream,  much  less  the  very  "dregs  of  his  wit." 
He  told  Drummond  that  the  half  of  his  come- 
dies were  not  in  print,  and  that  he  had  cleared 
but  200  pounds  by  all  his  labor  for  the  public 
theatre.  When  not  subsidized  by  the  court 
he  was  driven  by  want  to  write  for  the  London 
theatres;  he  lived  in  a  hovel  in  an  alley,  where 
he  took  service  with  the  notorious  play  broker. 
To  such  as  he,  reference  was  made  by  Hens- 
lowe,  who  in  his  diary  records  "the  grinding 
toil  and  the  starvation  wages  of  his  hungry 
and  drudging  bondsmen,"  who  were  strug- 
gling for  the  meanest  necessities  of  life.  This 
Titan  of  a  giant  brood  of  playwrights,  in  the 
days  of  his  declension,  wrote  mendicant 
epistles  for  bread,  and,  doubtless,  in  his  ex- 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  311 

tremity  recalled  Robert  Greene,  the  admon- 
isher  of  three  brother  poets  "that  spend  their 
wits  in  making  plaies." 

"Oh,  that  I  might  entreate  your  rare  wits 
to  be  imployed  in  more  profitable  courses,  and 
let  those  apes  imitate  your  past  excellence,  and 
never  more  acquaint  them  with  your  admired 
inventions."  Greene  was  a  writer  of  greatest 
discernment  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  people 
of  his  time,  "for  he  possessed  the  ability  to 
write  in  any  vein  that  would  sell."  He  only, 
of  all  the  writers  of  his  time,  gave  promise 
of  being  able  to  gain  a  competence  by  the  pen 
alone,  a  thing  which  no  writer  did,  or  could 
do,  in  that  day  by  writing  for  the  stage  alone. 
"He  (Shakespeare)  is  the  first  English  author 
who  made  a  fortune  with  his  pen,"  says  the 
Hon.  Cushman  K.  Davis  in  "The  Law  of 
Shakespeare."  In  the  absence  of  credible 
evidence,  Mr.  Davis  assumes  that  the  young 
man  who  came  up  from  Stratford  was  the  au- 
thor of  the  plays.  The  senator  does  not  seem 
aware  of  the  fact  that  Shakspere  the  Stratford 
player  was  a  shareholding  actor,  receiving  a 
share  in  the  theatre,  or  its  profits,  in  1599; 
a  partner  in  one  or  more  of  the  chief  com- 
panies; a  play  broker  who  purchased  and 


342         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

mounted  the  plays  of  other  men ;  and  that  he, 
like  Burbage,  Henslowe  and  Allen,  specu- 
lated in  real  estate.  He  was  shrewd  in  money 
matters  and  became  very  wealthy,  but  not  by 
writing  plays.  Suppose  that  William  Shaks- 
pere  of  Stratford-on-Avon  had  authored  all 
the  plays  associated  with  his  name,  that  alone 
would  not  have  made  him  wealthy.  The  price 
of  a  play  varied  from  four  to  ten  pounds,  and 
all  poet  Shakespeare's  labors  for  the  public 
theatre  would  have  brought  no  more  than  five 
hundred  pounds.  The  diary  of  Philip  Hens- 
lowe makes  it  clear  that  up  to  the  year  1600 
the  highest  price  he  ever  paid  was  six  pounds. 
The  Shakespeare  plays  were  not  exceptionally 
popular  in  that  day,  not  being  then  as  now, 
"the  talk  of  the  town."  Not  one  of  them 
equalled  in  popularity  Kyd's  "The  Spanish 
Tragedy." 

Shakespeare  was  soon  superseded  by 
Fletcher  in  popular  regard.  Only  one  of  the 
Shakespeare  tragedies,  one  historical  play,  and 
eight  comedies  were  presented  at  the  Court 
of  James  First,  who  reigned  twenty-two  years. 
Plays,  written  by  such  hack  writers  as  Dear- 
born, or  Chettle,  were  quite  as  acceptable  to 
princes.  We  know  that  Shakespeare's  fame 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  343 

was  thrown  into  the  shade,  hid  from  view, 
before  the  end  of  the  century  by  that  of 
several  play  makers.  Nevertheless  Shakes- 
peare's rehabilitation  during  the  eighteenth 
century  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  closet  and  not 
to  the  stage. 

Robert  Greene's  romances  were  "a  bower 
of  delight,"  a  kind  of  writing  held  in  high 
favor  by  all  classes.  Sir  Thomas  Overbury 
describes  his  chambermaid  as  reading 
Greene's  works  over  and  over  again.  It  is  a 
pleasure  to  see  in  the  elder  time  Greene's  writ- 
ings in  hands  so  full  of  household  cares,  since 
he  labored  to  make  young  lives  happy.  Robert 
Greene's  works  express  every  variation  in  the 
changing  conditions  of  life.  The  poetry  of 
his  pastoral  landscapes  are  vivid  word  pic- 
tures of  English  sylvan  scenes.  The  western 
sky  on  amorous  autumn  days  is  mantled  with 
sheets  of  burnished  gold.  The  soft  and  gentle 
zephyr  blows  over  castled  crag  and  fairy  glen 
fragrant  with  the  freshness  of  new-made  hay. 

He  was  a  graduate  of  both  universities,  a 
man  of  genius,  but  did  not  live  to  do  his  tal- 
ents full  justice.  A  born  story  teller,  like  Sir 
Walter  Scott,  he  could  do  good  work  easily 
and  quickly. 


344         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Students  of  Elizabethan  literature  know 
that  Robert  Greene  resisted  the  temptation  to 
write  in  the  best  paying  vein  of  the  age,  that 
of  salaciousness,  but  who  had  like  James 
Thomson, — "left  scarcely  a  line  that  dying, 
he  need  have  wished  to  blot." 

We  glean  the  following  from  the  pages  of 
"The  English  Novel  in  the  Time  of  Shakes- 
peare," by  J.  J.  Jusserand;  "Greene's  prose 
tale,  'Pandosto,  the  Triumph  of  Time/  had 
an  extraordinary  success,  while  Shakespeare's 
drama,  'Winter's  Tale,'  founded  on  Greene's 
Pandosto  was  not  printed,  either  in  authentic 
or  pirated  shape,  before  the  appearance  of  the 
1623  folio,  while  Greene's  prose  story  was  pub- 
lished in  1588  and  was  renamed  half  a  cen- 
tury later,  'The  History  of  Dorestus  and 
Fawnia.'  So  popular  was  it  that  it  was  printed 
again  and  again.  We  know  of  at  least  seven- 
teen editions,  and  in  all  likelihood  there  were 
more  throughout  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
even  under  one  shape  or  another  throughout 
the  eighteenth.  It  was  printed  as  a  chap-book 
during  this  last  period  and  in  this  costume  be- 
gan a  new  life.  It  was  turned  into  verse  in 
1672,  but  the  highest  and  most  extraordinary 
compliment  of  Greene's  performance  was  its 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  345 

translation  into  French,  not  only  once  but 
twice.  The  first  time  was  at  a  moment  when 
the  English  language  and  literature  were 
practically  unknown  and  as  good  as  non-exist- 
ent to  French  readers."  In  fact,  everything 
from  Greene's  pen  sold.  All  of  his  writings 
enjoyed  great  popularity  in  their  day,  and 
which,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than  three  hun- 
dred years,  have  been  deemed  worthy  of  re- 
publication,  insuring  the  rehabilitation  of 
Greene's  splendid  genius. 

We  are  content  to  believe  that  almost  all  of 
the  so-called  posthumous  writings  of  Robert 
Greene  are  spurious,  and  that  but  few  genuine 
chips  were  found  in  the  literary  work-shop  of 
the  poet  after  his  death.  We  accept  the  very 
striking  and  impressive  address  to  his  brother 
play-wrights. 

We  would  not  set  down  as  auto-biographical 
the  posthumuous  pamphlets,  even  though  of 
unquestioned  authenticity,  for  in  "The  Re- 
pentance" is  made  to  say,  "I  need  not  make 
long  discourse  of  my  parents,  who  for  their 
gravitie  and  honest  life  are  well  known  and 
esteemed  among  their  neighbors,  namely  in 
the  citie  of  Norwich  where  I  was  bred  and 
borne:"  and  then  he  is  made  to  contradict  all 


346         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

this  in  "Groatsworth  of  Wit,"  where  the  fath- 
er is  called  Gorinius,  a  despicable  miser. 
Greene  is  not  known  to  have  had  a  brother  to 
be  the  victim  of  his  trickery. 

As  "there  is  a  soul  of  truth  in  things  er- 
roneous," there  may  be  a  soul  of  truth  in  the 
following  letter,  contained  in  "The  Repent- 


ance." 


"Sweet  wife,  if  ever  there  was  any 
good  will  or  friendship  between  thee 
and  me,  see  this  bearer  (my  host)  sat- 
isfied of  his  debt.  I  owe  him  tenne 
pounds  and  but  for  him  I  had  per- 
ished in  the  streetes.  Forget  and 
forgive  my  wrongs  done  unto  thee 
and  Almight  God  have  mercie  on  my 
soule.  Farewell  till  we  meet  in 
Heaven  for  on  earth  thou  shalt  never 
see  me  more. 

This  2nd  day  of  Sept.,  1592. 

Written  by  thy  dying  husband, 

Robert  Greene." 

The  reader  will  notice  the  statement  in  the 
posthumed  letter  that  the  poet  had  contracted 
a  debt  in  the  sum  of  ten  pounds,  but  there  is 
nothing  whatever  about  leaving  many  papers 
in  sundry  booksellers  hands  which  Chettle 
averred  in  the  address  "To  the  Gentlemen 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  347 

Readers  Kind  Hearts  Dreame."  If  this  were 
a  fact,  the  bookseller  doubtless  would  have 
been  called  upon;  "see  this  bearer  (my  host) 
satisfied  of  his  debt"  and  sweet  wife  would  not 
have  borne  the  burden  while  "booksellers  felt 
themselves  blest  to  pay  dear  for  the  very  dregs 
of  her  husband's  wit." 

Those  writers  who  express  no  doubt  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  posthumed  pamphlets, 
leave  their  readers  to  set  down  as  auto- 
biographical whatever  portions  of  those  pieces 
he  may  think  proper.  At  the  same  time  the 
trend  of  impulse  is  given  the  reader  by  the 
critics  that  he  may  not  fail  to  read  the  story 
of  the  poet's  life  out  of  characters  devoid  of 
all  faith  in  honesty  and  in  virtue,  while  the 
author  (Greene)  is  anxious  evidently  to  point 
a  moral  by  them  and  reprove  vice.  These 
forged  pamphlets  and  so-called  auto-biog- 
raphical pamphlets  make  Greene  accuse  him- 
self of  crimes  which  he  surely  did  not  com- 
mit. There  is  not  an  atom  of  evidence  ad- 
duced to  show  Francisco  in  "Never  Too  Late" 
was  intended  by  the  author  for  a  picture  of 
himself,  and  we  do  not  believe  that  Greene 
wrote  the  pamphlet  in  the  main  in  which 


348         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Roberto  in  "Groats  Worth  of  Wit"  is  one  of 
the  despicable  characters. 

Greene's  non-dramatic  works  are  the  larg- 
est contribution  left  by  any  Elizabethan 
writer  to  the  novel  literature  of  the  day.  "He 
was  at  once  the  most  versatile  and  the  most 
laborious  of  literary  men."  Famous,  witty 
and  brilliant,  he  was  one  of  the  founders  of 
English  fiction,  and  is  conceded  to  be  the  au- 
thor of  half  a  dozen  plays  for  the  theatre. 
In  them  we  have  the  mere  "flotsam  and  jet- 
sam" of  his  prolific  pen. 

XI. 

There  is  an  explanatory  piece  of  writing 
which  should  be  read  in  connection  with 
Greene's  letter  to  'divers  play-makers."  We 
refer  to  the  preface  to  Kind  Hearts  Dreams, 
written  by  Henry  Chettle,  which  was  regis- 
tered December  8th,  1592.  Chettle  says: 
"About  three  months  since  dide  M.  Robert 
Greene,  leaving  many  papers  in  sundry  book- 
sellers hands,  among  others  his  Groats-Worth 
of  Wit,  in  which  a  letter  written  to  divers 
play-makers  is  offensively  by  one  or  two  of 
them  taken."  It  seems  that  by  'one  or  two' 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  349 

Chettle  means  two.  "I  had  only  in  the  copy 
this  share — it  was  ill-written — licensed  it  must 
be  ere  it  could  be  printed,  which  could  never 
be  if  it  might  not  be  read.  To  be  brief,  I  wrote 
over  and  as  nearly  as  I  could  follow  the  copy, 
only  in  that  letter  I  put  something  out,  but 
in  the  whole  book  not  a  word  in,  for  I  pro- 
test it  was  all  Greene's,  not  mine  nor  Master 
Nashes  as  some  unjustly  have  affirmed." 

The  letter  in  question  is  the  astonishing  and 
affecting  address  of  Robert  Greene  "To  those 
Gentlemen,  his  quondam  acquaintance,  that 
spend  thare  wits  in  making  Plays,"  with  which 
the  Groatsworth  of  Wit  concludes,  originally 
edited  and  published  by  Henry  Chettle,  three 
months  after  Greene's  death  in  1592,  having 
been  entered  at  Stationers'  Hall  on  the  20th 
of  September  in  that  year.  But  the  earliest 
known  edition  of  this  pamphlet  was  reprinted 
in  1596. 

Inasmuch  as  we  have  Chettle's  admission 
that  "only  in  that  letter  I  put  something  out," 
we  can  only  speculate  about  the  something  put 
out.  Was  it  something  written  in  connection 
with  the  first  object  in  Greene's  letter?  As 
an  implication,  yes.  Chettle  writes:  "For 
the  first  whose  learning  I  reverence  and  at  the 


350        SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

purusing  of  Greene's  book  (letter)  stroke  out 
what  in  conscience  I  thought  he  in  some  dis- 
pleasure writ,  or  had  it  been  true  yet  to  pub- 
lish it  was  intolerable." 

And  yet  this  man  (Chettle),  with  such  a 
tender  conscience,  printed  and  published  the 
passage,  charging  Marlowe,  or  the  object  of 
Greene's  first  reference — whoever  he  was— 
with  atheism.  The  very  worst  that  could  be 
said  of  any  person  in  the  age  of  "Shakespeare" 
is  contained  in  the  words,  "diabolical  athe- 
ism," notwithstanding  Chettle's  statement  that 
he  had  mitigated  Greene's  charges.  The  pas- 
sage in  question  seems  to  have  been  printed 
in  its  entirety,  nevertheless  Chettle  must  have 
had  peculiar  notions  about  offenses  "intoler- 
able," for  while  in  the  act  of  freeing  the 
letter  from  all  objectionable  matter,  he  fails 
to  omit  the  passage, — "hath  said  in  his  heart 
thare  is  no  God." 

However,  Chettle's  statement  fits  best  with 
the  object  of  Greene's  third  reference  (Peek) 
—"driven  to  extreme  shifts"- -(to  write  for 
the  common  players  for  a  living),  "dependent 
on  so  mean  a  stay  (theatre),  a  dissipated  dra- 
matist whose  habits  of  intemperance  are  often 
spoken  of  and  may  have  furnished  Chettle 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  351 

matter   for   expurgation — "I   put   something 


out." 


There  is  much  that  is  opprobrious  in  the 
character  of  George  Peele  not  disclosed  in 
the  passage  in  the  Groatsworth  letter. 

However,  Chettle  could  and  probably  did 
slash  into  the  so-called  Peele  reference,  for 
Peele  is  known  to  have  been  "off  color,"  and  if 
meant,  affords  Chettle  a  good  chance  to  "put 
something  out,"  which  was  "true,  yet  to  pub- 
lish it  was  intolerable." 

Greene  who  never  spares  himself,  did  not 
we  may  be  sure,  fail  to  censure  his  friend 
Peele  for  an  infraction  of  the  moral  law. 
Keep  in  mind  that  the  earliest  edition  of 
The  Groatsworth  of  Wit  was  printed  and 
published  in  1592,  with  the  appended  letter t 
but  not  a  single  copy  of  this  earliest  impres- 
sion has  been  preserved.  The  edition  of  1617 
-the  critics  only  dependence — may  not  agree 
'with  the  first  edition  of  1592.  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that  if  we  possessed  a  copy  of  the 
earliest  edition  (1592)  it  would  be  found  to 
contain  the  matter  which  is  "offensively  by 
one  or  two  of  them  taken,"  and  should  supply 
a  clue  and  probably  lead  to  identification,  for 
the  letter  if  discrepant  would  then  speak  for 


352         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

itself,  and  perchance  disclose  the  identity  of 
the  anonymous  personage  reported  to  have 
"factitious  grace  in  writing." 

All  of  Shakespeare's  biographers  and  com- 
mentators aver  that  Shakespeare  was  not  one 
of  the  three  persons  addressed.  How  then 
could  Chettle's  words  bear  witness  to  his 
(Shakespeare's)  civil  demeanor  or  factitious 
grace  in  writing?  Mr.  Fleay  stated  many 
years  ago  (1886)  that  there  was  an  entire  mis- 
conception of  Chettle's  language  that  Shakes- 
peare was  not  one  of  those  who  took  offense. 
They  are  expressly  stated  to  have  been  two 
of  the  three  authors  addressed  by  Greene.  The 
fanciful  biographers  of  Shakespeare  have  evi- 
dently mistaken  Chettle's  placation  of  George 
Peele,  or  either  of  the  three  play-makers  ad- 
dressed by  Greene,  it  does  not  matter  which, 
for  an  apology  to  Shakespeare,  who  was  not 
the  object  of  Greene's  satire  or  Chettle's  pla- 
cation. 

Christopher  Marlowe,  the  first  great  dra- 
matic poet,  was  the  father  of  English  tragedy 
and  the  creator  of  English  blank  verse.  He 
is,  by  general  consent,  identified  with  the  first 
person  address  by  Greene,  "With  thee  will  I 
first  begin,  thou  famous  gracer  of  tragedians, 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  353 

who  hath  said  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God. 
Why  should  thy  excellent  wit,  His  gift,  be  so 
blinded  that  thou  should  give  no  glory  to  the 
giver?"  The  second  person  referred  to  is  iden- 
tifiable with  Thomas  Nash,  "With  thee  I  join, 
young  juvenall,  that  by  ting  satyrist,"  though 
not  with  equal  accord,  as  the  first  with  Mar- 
lowe, as  some  few  persons  prefer  to  name 
Thomas  Lodge.  This  predilection  for  Lodge 
is  based  on  their  having  been  co-authors  in 
the  making  of  a  play  ("That  lastlie  with  me 
together  writ  a  comedie").  This  fact,  how- 
ever, signifies  very  little,  for  it  is  generally 
conceded  that  Marlowe,  Nash,  Peele,  Lodge 
and  Greene  mobilized  their  literary  activities 
in  the  production,  in  part  at  least,  of  not  a 
few  of  the  earlier  plays  called  Shakes- 
peare's. 

However,  the  person  reported  to  have  "fac- 
titious grace  in  writing,"  is  not  Nash,  for 
Chettle  writes,  "With  neither  of  them  that 
take  offense  was  I  acquainted,"  but  in  writing 
to  Nash,  he  signs  himself  "your  old  composi- 
tor." In  1589-90  Chettle  set  up  N  ash's  tracts 
against  Mar-Prelate,  so  it  seems  Nash  was  an 
old  acquaintance,  and  therefore  can't  be 


354         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL,  PHASE 

identified  with  the  person  reported  to  have 
"factitious  grace  in  writing." 

We  are  convinced  that  Lodge  was  not  the 
person  addressed  by  Greene  as  young  juve- 
nall.  He  was  absent  from  England  at  the 
date  of  Greene's  letter,  1592,  having  left  in 
1591  and  did  not  return  till  1593.  Moreover, 
he  had  declared  his  intention  long  before  to 
write  no  more  for  the  theatre.  In  1589  he 
vowed  "to  write  no  more  for  the  stage."  At 
Christmas  time  in  1592  he  was  in  the  Straits  of 
Magellan.  Born  in  1550,  Lodge  led  a  vir- 
tuous and  quiet  life.  He  was  seventeen  years 
older  than  Nash,  and  four  years  older  than 
Greene,  who  would  not,  in  addressing  one 
four  years  his  senior,  have  used  these  words, 
"Sweet  boy,  might  I  advise  thee."  The 
youthfulness  of  Nash  fits  well.  He  was  boy- 
ish in  appearance.  Born  in  November,  1567, 
he  was  seven  years  younger  than  Greene,  and 
was  the  youngest  member  of  their  fellowship. 
The  mild  reproof  "for  his  too  much  liberty 
of  speech,"  contained  in  the  letter,  justified  the 
belief  that  Thomas  Nash  was  referred  to  as 
"young  juvenall,  that  byting  satyrist,  who  had 
vexed  scholars  with  bitter  lines." 

Tom  Nash  was  a  great  pet  with  the  wil 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  355 

of  his  day.  He  is  referred  to  by  contem- 
porary writers;  frequently  one  calls  him  "our 
true  English  Aretine;"  Others  describe  him 
as  "sweet  Satyric  Nash,"  "gallant  juvenall," 
"his  pen  possessed  with  Hercules  furies"  and 
as  "Railing  Nash." 

"His  style  was  witty,  though  he  had 

some  gall ; 
Something  he  might  have  mended, 

so  may  all; 

Yet  this  I  say  that  for  a  mother's  wit, 
Few  men  have  ever  seen  the  like 

of  it." 

The  like  accord  and  universal  consent 
which  identifies  the  first  with  Marlowe, 
identifies  the  third  and  last  person,  who  had 
been  co-worker  in  drama  making  of  the  same 
fellowship,  with  George  Peele,  "and  thou  no 
less  deserving  than  the  other  two,  in  some 
things  rarer,  in  nothing  inferior,"  driven  (as 
myself)  to  "extreame  shifts,  a  little  have  I  to 
say  to  thee."  Chettle  could,  however,  have 
borne  witness  to  Peele  "his  civil  demeanor 
and  factitious  grace  in  writing."  Peele  held 
the  situation  of  city  poet  and  conductor  of 
pageants  for  the  court.  His  first  pageant 
bears  the  date  of  1585,  his  earliest  known  court 


356         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

play,  uThe  Arraignment  of  Paris,"  was  acted 
before  1584.  "Peele  was  the  object  of  patron- 
age of  noblemen  for  addressing  literary  trib- 
utes for  payment.  The  Earl  of  Northumber- 
land seems  to  have  presented  him  with  a  fee 
of  three  pounds.  In  May,  1591,  when  Queen 
Elizabeth  visited  Lord  Burleigh's  seat  at  The- 
obalds, Peele  was  employed  to  compose  cer- 
tain speeches  addressed  to  the  Queen,  which 
excused  the  absence  of  the  master  of  the  house, 
by  describing  in  blank  verse  in  his  "Poly- 
hymnia," the  Honorable  Triumph  at  Tilt. 
Her  Majesty  was  received  by  the  Right  Hon- 
orable Earl  of  Cumberland." 

In  January,  1595,  George  Peele,  Master  of 
Arts,  presented  his  "Tale  of  Troy"  to  the 
great  Lord  Treasurer  through  a  simple  mes- 
senger, his  eldest  daughter,  "necessities  serv- 
ant." Peele  was  a  practised  rhetorician,  who 
embellished  his  writings  with  elegantly- 
adorned  sentences  and  choice  fancies.  He 
was  a  man  of  polished  intellect  and  social  gifts 
and  possessed  of  a  very  winsome  personality. 
"His  soft,  caressing  woman  voice"  low,  sweet 
and  soothing,  may  have  had  a  considerable 
effect  upon  Chettle,  and  could  not  have  been 
unduly  honored  by  Chettle's  apology  in  wit- 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  357 

nessing   "his   civil    demeanor   and   factitious 
grace  in  writing." 

George  Peele  took  his  bachelor's  degree  at 
Oxford  in  1577.  He  was  "a  noted  poet  at 
the  University;"  his  affiliations  seem  to  have 
been  with  persons  exalted  in  rank.  He  is  dis- 
covered writing  a  poem  in  1593  to  glorify  the 
installation  of  five  Knights  of  the  Garter;  also 
a  stirring  farewell  to  Sir  Francis  Drake,  and 
in  the  same  year,  1589,  a  poem  on  the  home- 
coming of  Essex. 

"His  celebrations  of  the  completions  of 
thirty-second  and  thirty-seventh  years  of  the 
Queen's  reign  on  the  17th  of  November,  1590 
and  1595,  seem  to  indicate  relations  of  the 
poet  with  the  Court,  and  with  the  nobles  of  the 
Court."  No  wonder  that  he  was  exalted  in 
character  and  regarded  as  excellent  in  the  es- 
sential quality  which  "divers  of  worship  have 
reported." 

In  his  early  use  of  blank  verse,  Peele  be- 
gan that  reaction  against  the  "jigging  vein  of 
rhyming  mother  wits."  Peele  was  pre-emi- 
nently a  poet  of  refined  and  amiable  feeling, 
and  there  is  prima-facie  likelihood  that  Chet- 
tle  saw  in  his  demeanor  no  less  civil  than  he 
was  excellent  in  the  quality  he  professes;  be- 


358         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

sides  "divers  of  worship  have  reported  his  up- 
rightness of  dealing  which  argues  his  honesty 
and  his  factitious  grace  in  writing  that  ap- 
proves his  art." 

Peele's  affiliation  with  "divers  of  worship" 
(persons  ranked  by  birth  above  the  common 
people)  is  a  strong  confirmation  of  the  truth 
of  our  contention  that  there  is  identity  of  per- 
sonality with  the  person  reported  on  the  evi- 
dence of  "divers  of  worship." 

Peele's  identification  with  one  of  the  three 
to  whom  Greene  addressed,  seems  to  me  prob- 
able as  the  person  to  whom  Chettle  refers. 

As  Henry  Chettle  had  been  brought  into 
some  discredit  by  the  publication  of  Greene's 
celebrated  letter,  and  his  admission  that  he 
re-wrote  it,  we  know  that  the  letter  must  have 
been  surreptitiously  procured  as  evidenced  by 
its  contents.  The  letter  is  as  authentic,  doubt- 
less, as  any  garbled  or  mutilated  document 
may  be;  but  Chettle's  foolish  statement  con- 
tained in  his  preface  to  "Kind  Hearts 
Dreams"  has  awakened  the  suspicion,  in  re- 
gard to  the  authorship  of  "Groats  Worth  of 
Wit;"  that,  while  the  letter  (or  as  much  a* 
Chettle  chose  to  have  published)  is  genuine, 
"I  put  something  out,"  the  pamphlet,  "Groats 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  359 

Worth  of  Wit"  is  spurious,  in  the  main  and 
evidently  not  the  work  of  Robert  Greene. 
Who  can  be  content  to  believe  Chettle's  state- 
ment that  Greene  placed  this  criminating  let- 
ter in  the  hands  of  printers,  or  that  it  was  left 
in  their  hands  by  others  at  his  request?  A 
private  letter,  written  to  three  friends,  who 
have  been  co-workers  in  drama-making,  call- 
ing them  to  repentance,  charging  one  (Mar- 
lowe) with  diabolical  atheism!  This  was  a 
very  serious  charge  in  those  times,  when  per- 
sons were  burnt  at  the  stake  for  professing 
their  unbelief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

Chettle  was  the  first  to  make  current  the 
charge  of  atheism  against  Marlowe,  the  one 
of  them  that  took  offense,  and  whose  acquaint- 
ance he  (Chettle)  did  not  seek.  Chettle  rev- 
ernced  Marlowe's  learning,  and  would  have 
his  readers  believe  that  he  did  greatly  mitigate 
Greene's  charge,  but  the  contents  of  the  letter 
as  transcribed  by  Chettle  and  printed  by  the 
bookmakers,  discredit  Chettle's  statement,  as 
the  charge  of  diabolical  atheism  was  not 
struck  out,  and  was,  if  proven,  punishable  by 
death. 

There  is  no  evidence  adduced  to  show  that 
Marlowe  was  indignant  because  of  Greene's 


360         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

admonition,  contained  in  a  private  letter  writ- 
ten to  three  play-makers  of  his  own  fellow- 
ship, but  resented  the  public  charge  of  athe- 
ism, for  which  he,  Chettle,  as  accessory  and 
transcriber,  was  chiefly  responsible  in  making 
public.  We  know  that  Marlowe  was  charged 
with  atheism  at  the  time  of  his  death  at  Dept- 
ford,  for  in  May,  1593,  following  the  publica- 
tion of  Greene's  letter,  printed  at  the  end  of 
the  pamphlet,  "Groats  Worth  of  Wit,"  the 
Privy  Council  issued  a  warrant  for  Marlowe's 
arrest.  A  copy  of  Marlowe's  blasphemies, 
so  called,  was  sent  to  Her  Highness,  and  en- 
dorsed by  one  Richard  Bame,  who  was  soon 
after  hanged  for  some  loathsome  crime.  But 
a  few  days  later,  after  Marlowe's  apprehen- 
sion, they  wrote  in  the  parish  book  at  Dept- 
ford  on  June  1st,  "Christopher  Marlowe  slain 
by  Francis  Archer." 

At  the  age  of  thirty,  he,  "the  first  and  great- 
est inheritor  of  unfulfilled  renown"  went 
where  "Orpheus  and  where  Homer  are." 

The  loss  to  English  letters  in  Marlowe's 
untimely  death  cannot  be  measured,  neverthe- 
less, England  of  that  day  was  spared  the  in- 
f  anmy  of  his  execution.  However,  the  zealots 
of  those  days  found  a  subject,  in  Francis  Kett, 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  361 

a  fellow  of  Marlowe's  college,  who  was  burnt 
in  Norwich  in  1589  for  heresy.  He  was  a 
pious,  God-fearing  man  who  fell  a  victim  to 
the  strenuousity  with  which  he  maintained 
his  religious  convictions.  Another  subject  was 
found  in  the  person  of  Bartholmew  Leggett, 
who  was  burnt  at  the  stake  for  stating  his  con- 
fession of  faith,  which  was  identicial  with  the 
religious  belief  of  Thomas  Jefferson  and  for- 
mer President  William  Howard  Taft.  The 
times  were  thirsty  for  the  blood  of  daring 
spirits.  The  shores  of  the  British  Isles  were 
strewn  with  the  wreckage  of  the  great  Ar- 
mada. In  Germany,  Kepler  (he  of  the  three 
laws)  was  struggling  to  save  his  poor  old 
mother  from  being  burnt  at  the  stake  for  a 
witch.  In  Italy,  they  burnt  Bruno  at  the  stake 
while  Galileo  played  recanter. 

That  Marlowe  was  one  of  the  playmakers 
who  felt  incensed  at  the  publication  of 
Greene's  letter  admits  of  no  doubt.  He  most 
likely  would  have  resented  the  public  charge 
of  atheism.  "With  neither  of  them  that  take 
offense  was  I  acquainted  (writes  Chettle)  and 
with  one  of  them  (Marlowe)  I  care  not  if  I 
never  be."  In  such  blood  bespattered  times, 
Chettle  could  and  did  write  "for  the  first 


362         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

(Marlowe)  whose  learning  I  reverence,  and 
at  the  perusing  of  Greene's  book  (letter) 
struck  out  what  in  conscience  I  thought  he  in 
some  displeasure  writ,  or  had  it  been  true  yet 
to  publish  it  was  intolerable." 

Chettle's  conscience  must  have  been  a  little 
seared,  for  he  omitted  to  strike  out  the  only 
statement  of  fact  contained  in  the  letter,  which 
it  would  seem  could  have  imperiled  the  life  of 
Marlowe.  The  letter  evidences  the  fact  that 
all  of  that  portion  referring  to  Marlowe  was 
not  garbled,  and  that  there  was  not  any  in- 
tolerable something  struck  out,  but  instead,  as 
transcriber  and  publisher,  he  retained  the  ful- 
minating passage,  "had  said  in  his  heart,  there 
is  no  God." 

Notwithstanding  Chettle's  statement,  we 
are  of  the  opinion  that  the  passage  about  Mar- 
lowe was  printed  in  its  integrity. 

Chettle's  having  failed  to  omit  the  charge 
of  diabolical  atheism,  reveals  the  strong  per- 
sonal antipathy  he  had  for  Marlowe.  Few 
there  are  who  set  up  Marlowe  as  claimant  for 
Chettle's  apology,  and  fewer  still,  who  would 
not  regard  him  worthy  of  the  compliment, 
"factitious  grace  in  writing,"  and  whose  ac- 
quaintance Chettle  did  not  seek,  but  whose 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  363 

fascinating  personality  and  exquisite  feeling 
for  poetry  was  the  admiration  of  Drayton  and 
Chapman,  who  were  among  the  noblest,  as 
well  "as  the  best  loved  of  their  time."  George 
Chapman  was  among  the  few  men  whom  Ben 
Jonson  said  he  loved.  Anthony  Wood 
described  him  as  "a  person  of  most  reverend 
aspect,  religious  and  temperate  qualities." 
Chapman  sought  conference  with  the  soul  of 
Marlowe. 

"Of  his  free  soul  whose  living  sub- 
ject stood 
Up  to  the  chin  in  the  Pierian  flood." 

Henry  Chettle's  act  of  placation  is  offered 
to  one  of  two  of  the  three  play-makers  ad- 
dressed, and  not  to  the  actor  referred  to,  who 
was  not  one  of  those  addressed ;  therefore, 
"Shake-scene"  could  not  have  been  the  re- 
cipient of  Chettle's  apology,  or  placation,  in 
whose  behalf  ("upstart  crow")  Chettle  re- 
tracts nothing.  The  following  reference  is 
to  one  of  the  offended  play-makers,  pointed  at 
in  Greene's  address,  whom  Chettle  wishes  to 
placate.  "The  other  whome  at  that  time  I 
did  not  so  much  spare  as  since  I  wish  I  had — 
that  I  did  not,  I  am  as  sorry  as  if  the  original 


364         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

fault  had  been  my  fault,  because  myself  have 
seen  his  demeanor  no  less  civil  excellent  in  the 
quality  he  professes;  besides,  diverse  of  wor- 
ship have  reported  his  uprightness  of  dealing, 
which  argues  his  honesty  and  his  factitious 
grace  in  writing  that  approves  his  art." 

Chettle  lost  no  time  in  transcribing  the 
posthumous  letter.  Doubts  as  to  "Groats 
Worth  of  Wit"  were  entertained  at  the  time 
of  publication.  Some  suspected  Nash  to  have 
had  a  hand  in  the  authorship,  others  accused 
Chettle.  Nash  did  take  offense  at  the  report 
that  it  was  his.  Its  publication  caused  much 
excitement  and  the  rumor  went  abroad  that 
the  pamphlet  was  a  forgery.  "Other  news  I 
am  advised  of,"  writes  Nash,  in  an  epistle  pre- 
fixed to  the  second  edition  of  "Fierce-penni- 
less," "that  a  scald,  trivial,  lying  pamphlet 
called  "Greene's  Groats  Worth  of  Wit"  is 
given  out  to  be  of  my  doing.  God  never  have 
care  of  my  soul,  but  utterly  renounce  me,  if 
the  least  word  or  syllable  in  it  proceeded  from 
my  pen,  or  if  I  were  any  way  privy  to  the 
writing  or  printing  of  it."  We  regard  these 
words  confirmatory  of  the  fact  that  "Groats 
Worth  of  Wit"  is  not  a  work  of  unquestioned 
authenticity,  and  furthermore,  that  Nash  did 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  365 

not  believe  it  the  work  of  Robert  Greene. 
Prlma  facie,  it  is  spurious,  for  Nash  spoke  in 
high  praise  of  Greene's  writings.  He  neither 
would,  nor  could,  have  used  the  words  "scald, 
trivial,  lying"  of  a  genuine  work  of  Robert 
Greene,  whose  writings  were  held  in  high 
favor  by  all  classes.  Nash  could  not  have 
taken  offense  at  the  allusion  of  Greene,  which 
was  rather  complimentary  though  personal, 
and  not  intended  for  publication;  but  it  did, 
however,  contain  some  slight  mixture  of  cen- 
sure,— "Sweet  boy,  might  I  advise  thee,  get 
not  many  enemies  by  bitter  words.  Blame  not 
scholars  vexed  with  sharp  lines  if  they  re- 
prove thy  too  much  liberty  of  reproof." 
Nash  was  very  angry,  but  only  because 
Greene's  letter  was  given  to  the  public  by 
Chettle.  But  wherefore  persist  in  the  search 
if  the  person  when  found  cannot  be  identified 
with  Shakespeare.  For  note  this  admission 
by  Mr.  Lang  himself— "If  we  take  Chettle  to 
have  been  a  strict  grammarian,  by  his  words  *a 
letter,  writen  to  diverse  play-makers  is  offen- 
sively by  one  or  two  of  them  taken,'  William 
Shakespeare  or  Shakspere  or  however  you 
spell  the  name,  is  excluded;  the  letter  was 
most  assuredly  not  written  to  him."  (Shake- 


366         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

speare,  Bacon  and  The  Great  Unknown,  p. 
306). 


AUTOGRAPH   OF   QUEEN   ELIZABETH. 

The  letter  and  pamphlet  both  in  Greene's 
handwriting  would  have  been  the  best  pos- 
sible evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  its  con- 
tents and  legibility.  Chettle's  not  offering  in 
evidence  the  original  letter  is  strong  presump- 
tive proof  of  the  commission  of  a  forgery. 
He,  if  not  the  chief  actor  in  the  offense,  was 
an  accessory  after  the  fact,  and  should,  in 
his  appeal  to  the  public  in  defense  of  his  repu- 
tation, have  brought  forward  the  pamphlet  it- 
self, embracing  the  whole  matter,  for  exami- 
nation and  comparison;  for  we  feel  satisfied 
that  such  an  examination  would  prove  that  the 
celebrated  letter  was  authored  and  in  the 
handwriting  of  Robert  Greene,  and  not  so  ill 
written  that  it  could  not  be  read  by  the 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  367 

printers,  who  must  have  been  familiar  with 
the  handwriting  of  the  largest  contributor  of 
the  prose  literature  of  his  day.  For  ourselves, 
what  we  have  adduced  convinces  us  that  the 
tract,  "Groats  Worth  of  Wit"  was  authored 
and  wrritten  by  one  of  Phillip  Henslowe's 
hacks,  presumably,  Henry  Chettle,  an  indig- 
ent of  many  imprisonments,  who  was  always 
importuning  the  old  play-broker  for  money. 
Since  the  tract,  "Groats  Worth  of  Wit,"  was 
in  Chettle's  own  handwriting,  he  strove  to  fool 
the  printers  by  transcribing  Greene's  letter 
and  binding  both  together,  through  that  "dis- 
guised hood"  to  fool  the  public.  Abraham 
Lincoln  is  reputed  to  have  said,  "You  may 
fool  all  the  people  some  of  the  time,  and  some 
of  the  people  all  the  time,  but  you  cannot  fool 
all  the  people  all  the  time." 

It  is  possible  that  Chettle  may  have  fooled 
some  of  the  people  of  his  own  generation  some 
of  the  time,  but  in  later  times,  through  the 
misapprehension  of  his  quoted  words,  he  has 
fooled  many  of  the  Stratfordians  all  of  the 
time.  Chettle,  however,  would  not  permit  the 
letter  to  come  forward  in  its  integrity  and 
speak  for  itself,  disclosing  the  nature  of  the  in- 
tolerable something  "stroke  out" 


368         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

The  fact  of  the  whole  matter  appears  to  be 
that  Henry  Chettle,  wishing  to  profit  finan- 
cially by  the  great  commercial  value  of 
Robert  Greene's  name,  was  accessory  to  the 
embezzlement  and  the  commission  of  a  forg- 
ery, and  was  the  silent  beneficiary  of  the 
fraud.  The  mutual  connection  of  hack  writer 
and  pirate  publisher  is  so  obvious  that  a  jury 
of  discerning  students,  with  the  exhibits,  pre- 
sented together  with  the  presumptive  proofs 
and  inferential  evidence  contextured  in  both 
letter  and  preface,  should  easily  confirm  our 
opinion  of  the  incredibility  of  Chettle's  state- 
ments contained  in  the  preface  to  "Kind 
Hearts  Dreams."  The  evidence  of  their  fals- 
ity is,  prima-facie,  destitute  of  credible  attesta- 
tion. 

We  are  made  to  see,  in  our  survey  of  the 
age  of  Elizabeth,  much  that  is  in  striking  con- 
trast with  the  spirit  and  activities  of  our  time. 
There  is  a  notable  contrast  between  the  public 
play  house  of  those  days,  where  no  respect- 
able woman  ever  appeared,  and  with  the  the- 
ater of  our  day — the  rival  of  the  church  as  a 
moral  force.  In  the  elder  time  "the  perma- 
nent and  persistent  dishonor  attached  to  the 
stage"  and  the  stigma  attached  to  the  poets 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  UG'J 

who  wrote  for  the  public  play  house,  attached 
in  like  manner  to  the  regular  frequenters  of 
public  theaters,  the  majority  of  whom  could 
neither  read  nor  write,  but  belonged  chiefly 
to  the  vicious  and  idle  class  of  the  population. 
At  all  the  theaters,  according  to  Malone,  it 
appears  that  noise  and  show  were  what  chiefly 
attracted  an  audience  in  spite  of  the  reputed 
author.  There  was  clamor  for  a  stage  reek- 
ing with  blood  and  anything  ministering  to 
the  unchaste  appetites. 

The  spectacular  actor  and  clown  were 
relatively  advantaged,  as  he  could  say  much 
more  than  was  set  down  for  him.  Kemp's 
extemporizing  powers  of  histrionic  buffoon- 
ery, gagging  and  grimacing,  paid  the  running 
expenses  of  the  play  house. 

Phillips  says:  "It  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  actors  then  occupied  an  inferior  position 
in  society,  and  that  in  many  quarters  even  the 
vocation  of  a  dramatic  writer  was  considered 
scarcely  respectable."  In  Ben  Jonson's  letter 
to  the  Earl  of  Salisbury,  we  can  see  very 
clearly  that  he  regarded  playwriting  as  a  deg- 
radation. We.  transcribe  it  in  part  as  follows : 

"I  am  here,  my  honored  Lord,  unexamined 
and  unheard,  committed  to  a  vile  prison  and 


370         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL,  PHASE 

with  me  a  gentleman  (whose  name  may  have 
perhaps  come  to  your  Lordship),  one  Mr. 
George  Chapman,  a  learned  and  honest  man. 
The  cause  (would  I  could  name  some 
worthier,  though  I  wish  we  had  known  none 
worthy  our  imprisonment)  is  (the  words  irk- 
me  that  our  fortunes  hath  necessitated  us  to  so 
despise  a  course)  a  play,  my  Lord. 

We  see  how  keenly  Jonson  felt  the  disgrace, 
not  on  account  of  the  charge  of  reflecting  on 
some  one  in  a  play  in  which  they  had  fede- 
rated, for  he  protested  his  own  and  Chapman's 
innocence,  but  he  felt  that  their  degradation 
lay  chiefly  in  writing  stage  poetry,  for  drama- 
making  was  regarded  as  a  degrading  kind  of 
employment,  which  poets  accepted  who  were 
struggling  for  the  meanest  necessities  of  life, 
and  were  driven  by  poverty  to  their  produc- 
tion, and  to  the  slave-driving  play-brokers, 
many  of  whom  became  very  rich  by  making 
the  flesh  and  blood  of  poor  play-writers  their 
sustenance. 

In  looking  into  Philip  Henslowe's  old  note- 
book, we  see  how  the  grasping  play-brokers 
of  the  olden  time  speculated  on  the  poor  play- 
writers  necessities,  when  plays  were  not  re- 
garded as  literature;  when  the  most  strenuous 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  371 

and  laborious  of  dramatic  writers  for  the  the- 
atre could  not  hope  to  gain  a  competence  by 
the  pen  alone,  but  wrote  only  for  bread ;  when 
play-writers  were  in  the  employ  of  the  share- 
holding actors,  as  hired  men;  and  when  their 
employers,  the  actors,  were  social  outcasts, 
who,  in  order  to  escape  the  penalty  for  the  in- 
fraction of  the  law  against  vagabondage,  were 
nominally  retained  by  some  nobleman.  In 
further  proof  of  the  degradation  which  was 
attached  to  the  production  of  dramatic  com- 
position, "when  Sir  Thomas  Bodley,  about  the 
year  1600,  extended  and  remodeled  the  old 
university  library  and  gave  it  his  name,  he 
declared  that  no  such  riff-raff  as  play  books 
should  ever  find  admittance  to  it."  "When 
Ben  Jonson  treated  his  plays  as  literature  by 
publishing  them  in  1616  as  his  works,  he  was 
ridiculed  for  his  pretensions,  while  Webster's 
care  in  the  printing  of  his  plays  laid  himself 
open  to  the  charge  of  pedantry." 

These  facts  and  concurring  events  in  the 
life  of  Robert  Wilson  and  Will  Kemp,  con- 
vince us  that  Shakespeare  was  not,  and  that 
Kemp  or  Wilson  was  the  person  at  whom 
Greene  leveled  his  satire,  by  bearing  witness 
to  their  extemporizing  power  and  haughty 


372         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

and  insolent  demeanor  in  introducing  impro- 
visations and  interpolations  of  their  "own  wit 
into  poets'  plays." 

A  CONTENTED  MIND 

Sweet  are  the  thoughts  that  savour  of  content; 
The  quiet  mind  is  richer  than  a  crown ; 
Sweet  are  the  nights  in  careless  slumber  spent; 
The  poor  estate  scorns  fortune's  angry  frown. 
Such  sweet  content,  such  minds,  such  sleep, 

such  bliss, 

Beggars  enjoy,  when  princes  oft  do  miss, 
The  homely  house  that  harbours  quiet  rest; 
The  cottage  that  affords  no  pride  nor  care; 
The  mean  that  'grees  with  country  music  best; 
The  sweet  comfort  of  mirth  and  modest  fare. 

— Robert  Greene. 


"THAT  OLD  MAN  ELOQUENT"  (GEO.  CHAP- 
MAN)—"A  BETTER  SPIRIT" 

XII. 

It  may  not  be  unacceptable  to  our  readers 
for  us  to  take  this  opportunity  of  presenting 
them  with  a  slight  sketch  of  the  life  of  the 
great  translator  of  Homer,  George  Chapman. 

In  miner's  usage  the  Chapman  lode  is  not  a 
continuous  ore-bearing  vein.  His  apotheg- 


Crescent  Arms  of  Chapman. 


•2a 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  373 

matic  sayings  are  disseminated  through  a 
large  mass  of  quartzless  porphyry  contained 
in  the  early  poems  and  in  several  of  his  plays; 
although  considerable  rich  ore  has  been  ex- 
tracted from  all  of  his  original  work  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  main  vein  or  mother-lode, 
the  bonanza  poems  comprising  his  Homeric 
labors. 

However,  the  students  of  English  poetry 
may  find  in  every  fissure  or  ledge  in  the  grand 
old  poet's  veins  excerpts  for  a  noble  anthol- 
ogy. George  Chapman  says,  "Charles  Lamb 
is  a  writer  in  whom  great  faults  are  compen- 
sated by  great  beauties." 

That  Professor  Minto  was  correct  in  his 
identification  of  Chapman  with  the  rival  poet 
who  supplanted  the  sonneteer  (Shakespeare) 
in  his  patron's  estimation,  is  the  conviction  of 
almost  all  sonnet  critics.  Chapman  is  thus 
conjecturally  connected  with  "Shakespeare," 
who  "evidently  admired"  the  elder  poet. 
A  "better  spirit"  remarkable  for  "the  full, 
proud  sail  of  his  great  verse,"  and  notwith- 
standing Shakespeare's  manifestations  of  jeal- 
ousy, was  amongst  the  first  of  contemporary 
poets  to  recognize  the  beauties  of  Chapman 
genius.  The  statement  "that  the  rivalry  here 


374         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

indicated  was  the  outcome  of  bitter  personal 
resentment,  and  may  be  traced  elsewhere  in 
the  works  of  both  authors,"  is  essentially  ab- 
surd and  false,  for  Chapman  would  not  have 
censured  Shakespeare  for  his  reference  to  him 
as  his  rival  in  the  Sonnets  (80-86)  ;  he  would 
have  regarded  them  as  an  appreciation. 

Surely  Shakespeare  could  not  have  been 
glanced  at  in  Chapman's  preface  to  his  trans- 
lation of  the  Iliad,  as  a  certain  "envious  wind- 
sucker  buzzing  into  every  ear  my  detraction," 
for  the  elusive  personality  of  "Shakespeare," 
author  of  the  Poems  and  Plays  is  proof  against 
the  assumption  that  Chapman  was  ever  the 
subject  of  "Shakespeare's"  censure. 

The  terms  in  which  George  Chapman  is 
commonly  described  by  his  contemporaries 
are  of  almost  filial  respect.  He  was  among  the 
few  men  whom  Ben  Jonson  said  he  loved,  "a 
person  of  most  revered  aspect,  religious  and 
temperate  qualities." 

It  may  be  justly  claimed  for  Chapman  that 
he  did  his  utmost  to  shun  in  all  dedicatory 
verse  the  slightest  imputation  of  fawning  ser- 
vility, choosing  for  patrons  personal  friends. 

Chapman  as  a  literary  personality  is  obvi- 
ous enough  to  the  understanding  of  the  reader, 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  375 

for  the  poet  and  playwright  lies  directly  in  the 
way  of  the  student  studying  Elizabethan  liter- 
ature. On  the  literary  side  he  is  manifested 
clearly  in  all  his  acts  and  deeds.  Herein  he 
contrasts  with  Shakspere,  the  Stratford  player 
whose  biographers  are  much  troubled  at  the 
scantiness  of  literary  things  that  they  can  even 
conjecturally  identify  personally  with  "Shake- 
speare" author  of  the  plays;  while  Chapman 
is  sufficiently  supplied  with  literary  material 
and  references  adequate  to  the  wants  of  his  lit- 
erary biographer,  for  there  is  no  scantiness  of 
information  about  him  of  the  literary  sort — 
common  personal  facts  of  everyday  life  are 
not  the  essentials  in  the  lives  of  the  poets. 

We  have  the  evidence  of  his  own  writings 
that  Chapman  was  born  at  or  near  Hitchens 
in  Herefordshire.  The  Hitchen  Register  only 
commences  with  the  year  1562,  three  years  af- 
ter the  poet's  birth.  While  under  the  spell  of 
his  divine  patron,  Homer,  who  was  "angel  to 
him,  star  and  fate"  in  reply  to  the  poet's  in- 
quiry 

What  may  I  reckon  thee  whose  heavenly  look 

Shows  not  nor  voice  sounds.    Man 

I  am  said  he  that  spirit  Elysian 

That  in  thy  native  ayre  and  on  the  hill 


376         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Next  HitcmVs  left  hand  did  thy  bosom  fill 
With  such  a  flood  of  soul  that  then  wert  faine 
(With  acclamations  of  her  rapture  then) 
To  vent  it  to  the  echoes  of  the  vale ; 
When  meditating  of  me  a  sweet  gale 
Brought  me  upon  thee  and  thou  didst  inherit 
My  true  sense  (for  the  time  then)  in  my  spirits 
And  I  invisible  went  prompting  thee 
To  those  fayre  greenes  thou  didst  English  me." 

William  Browne  also  in  his  Britannia  Pas- 
torals styles  Chapman  "The  learned  shepherd 
of  fair  Hitchin  Hill."  And  from  the  title 
page  of  his  Homer  that  his  birth  year  was 
1559.  We  do  not  know  which  of  the  several 
different  families  or  branches  of  the  great 
Chapman  family  he  was  connected  with;  we 
do  not  know  the  baptismal  name  of  his  father, 
nor  the  maiden  name  of  his  mother,  or  any 
fact  relative  to  her  parentage,  nor  anything  re- 
lating to  their  domestic  economy  or  occupa- 
tion. We  do  not  know  that  the  poet  ever  mar- 
ried. Anthony  Wood  describes  him  as  "a  per- 
son of  most  reverend  aspect,  religious  and  tem- 
perate qualities,  rarely  meeting  in  a  poet."  No 
vile  personal  gossip  sully  his  renown,  a  man 
of  grave  character  and  regular  life. 

George  Chapman's  name  has  not  received 
due  prominence  in  the  modern  hand  books  of 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  377 

English  literature,  but  he  was  a  bright  torch 
and  numbered  by  his  own  generation  among 
the  greatest  of  its  poets.  He  whom  Webster 
calls  the  "Princes  Sweet  Homer"  and  "My 
Friend"  was  not  unduly  honored  by  the  full 
and  heightened  style  which  Webster  makes 
characteristic  of  him.  "Our  Homer-Lucan" 
as  he  was  gracefully  termed  by  Daniel,  is  a 
poet  much  admired  by  great  men.  Edmund 
Waller  ( 1605-1687)  poet,  orator  and  wit  never 
could  read  Chapman's  Homer  "without  a  de- 
gree of  transport." 

Barry  is  reputed  to  have  said  that  when  he 
went  into  the  street  after  reading  it,  men 
seemed  ten  feet  high.  Coleridge  declares 
Chapman's  version  of  the  Odyssey  to  be  as 
truly  an  original  poem  as  the  "Faery  Queen." 
He  also  avers  that  Chapman  in  his  moral  he- 
roic verse  stands  above  Ben  Jonson,  "there  is 
more  dignity,  more  lustre  and  equal  strength." 

Translation  was  in  those  times  a  new  power 
in  literature.  By  the  indomitable  force  and 
fire  of  genius,  Chapman  has  made  Homer 
himself  speak  English  by  having  chosen  that 
which  prefers  the  spirit  to  the  letter.  It  is  in 
his  translation  that  the  Homeric  poems  are 
best  read  as  an  English  work.  Out  of  it  there 


378         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

comes  a  whiff  of  the  breath  of  Homer.  It  is 
as  massive  and  majestic  as  Homer  himself 
would  have  written  in  the  land  of  the  Virgin 
queen. 

Chapman  strives  to  transmute  Homer's  soul 
into  written  words  with  unexampled  energy 
and  sublimity,  set  forth  with  such  wealth  of 
glorious  eloquence  and  grandeur  of  thought. 
He  has  added,  says  Swinburne  "a  monument 
to  the  temple  which  contains  the  glories  of 
his  native  language,  the  godlike  images  and 
the  costly  relics  of  its  past."  "The  earnestness 
and  passion,"  says  Charles  Lamb,  "which  he 
has  put  into  every  part  of  these  poems  would 
e  incredible  to  a  reader  of  mere  modern 
translations.  His  almost  Greek  zeal  for  the 
honor  of  his  heroes  is  only  paralleled  by  that 
fierce  spirit  of  Hebrew  bigotry  with  which 
Milton,  as  if  personating  one  of  the  zealots  of 
the  old  law  clothed  himself  when  he  sat  down 
to  paint  the  acts  of  Samson  against  the  uncir- 
cumcised." 

It  was  the  reflected  Hellenic  radiance  of  the 
grand  old  Chapman  version  to  the  lifted  eyes 
of  Keats  flooded  with  the  light  which  "never 
was  on  sea  or  shore."  This  younger  poet  sang : 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  379 

"Much  have  I  travelled  in  the  realms  of  gold, 
And  many  goodly  states  and  kingdoms  seen, 
Round  many  western  islands  have  I  been, 
Which  bards  in  fealty  to  Apollo  hold; 
Oft  of  one  wide  expanse  had  I  been  told, 
That  deep-browed  Homer  ruled  as  his  de- 
mesne. 

Yet  did  I  never  breathe  its  pure  serene 
Till  I  heard  Chapman  speak  out  loud  and 
bold."    *    *    * 

Chapman,  though  the  recipient  of  patron- 
age of  Prince  Henry  and  his  Cynthian  sister, 
Elizabeth  "Queen  of  Hearts,"  nevertheless, 
no  favor  was  shown  him  by  the  mob  of  syco- 
phantic parasites  at  the  Court  of  James.  How- 
ever, the  old  oligarchist  was  the  first  dramatic 
writer  to  challenge  the  principle  of  monarchy 
as  a  compliment  to  government  in  his  declara- 
tion of  republican  principle  contained  in  the 
daring  words : 

"And  what's  a  prince?  Had  all  been  virtuous 

men, 

There  never  had  been  prince  upon  the  earth, 
And  so  no  subject:  All  men  had  been  princes. 
A  virtuous  man  is  subject  to  no  prince, 
But  to  his  soul  and  honor,  which  are  laws 
That  carry  fire  and  sword  within  themselves, 
Never  corrupted,  never  out  of  rule; 
What  is  there  in  a  prince  that  his  least  lusts 


380         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

Are  valued  at  the  lives  of  other  men; 

When  common  faults  in  him  should  prodigies 

be, 
And   his    gross    dotage    rather   loathed    than 

soothed?" 

When  these  words  were  written,  James  VI 
and  I,  had  sat  three  years  on  the  British 
throne.  His  Majesty  was  a  slobbering,  dirty, 
trembling,  contemptible  coward,  an  habitual 
drunkard.  He  wrote  a  book  upon  that  strange 
delusion,  witchcraft,  in  which  he  was  a  devout 
believer,  and  ordered  Reginald  Scot's  famous 
work  burned.  Scot  fortunately  died  during 
the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  thus  escaping 
burning  at  the  stake. 

The  King's  claim  to  freedom  from  all  con- 
trol by  law  or  responsibility  to  anything  but 
his  own  royal  will  was  tantamount  to  laying 
the  head  of  "Baby  Charles"  on  the  execution- 
er's block  and  the  final  eclipse  of  the  House  of 
Stuart,  that  fated  race. 

No  wonder  Chapman  rather  loathed  than 
soothes  the  King's  gross  dotage,  for  Ben  Jon- 
son  and  himself  had  been  cast  into  a  loathsome 
prison  in  the  previous  year  by  this  most  loath- 
some of  British  kings,  merely  because  of  Mar- 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  381 

stem's  waggery  in  the  matter  of  "Eastward 
Hoe." 

His  Majesty  had  also,  by  way  of  exercising 
his  power  as  King  by  Divine  right,  hanged  a 
pickpocket  on  the  journey  from  Edinburgh  to 
London  without  any  trial— a  prelude  to  brave 
Sir  Walter  Raleigh's  death,  and  presageful  of 
the  fate  of  "Faire  Arabella  (Stuart)  Child  of 
Woe."  "A  fouler  judicial  murder  never 
stained  the  annals  of  any  country,"  says  John 
Fiske).  (Old  Virginia,  Vol.  I,  p.  200). 

Sir  Thomas  Overbury  of  the  Middle  Tem- 
ple was  not  so  fortunate. 

The  Earl  of  Southampton,  writing  to  Sir 
R.  Winwood  on  the  4th  of  August,  1613,  says: 
"A  rooted  hatred  lyeth  in  the  King's  heart  to- 
ward him."  (Rimbault  Life  of  Overbury). 

As  to  the  King  of  England  criminality : 

James  the  First  was,  in  matter-of-fact, 
the  principal  figure  in  all  of  the  "poisonous 
and  adulterous  Villany  Treachery  blood  and 
shame"  in  connection  with  the  poisoning  of 
Overbury. 

The  revelations  disclosed  by  the  annals  of 
that  dark  and  foul  reign  point  unerringly  at 
James  the  First,  the  sceptered  murderer  of  Sir 
Thomas  Overbury. 


382         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

But  Chapman  and  Jonson  finding  them- 
selves in  imminent  danger  of  having  their  nos- 
trils slit  or  at  least  their  ears  clipped  in  order 
to  save  their  bodies  from  mutilation,  addressed 
seven  letters  to  noteworthy  persons.  Chap- 
man's letter  to  the  King  is  reprinted  from  the 
Athnaeum  of  March  30th,  1901.  Mr.  Bertram 
Dobell  took  them  from  a  quarto  manuscript, 
commonplace  book  of  ninety  leaves  into  which 
they  had  been  copied  together  with  other  let- 
ters, petitions  and  documents  dating  between 
1580  and  1613,  says  that  "the  writer  or  collec- 
tor of  the  documents  can  have  been  no  other 
than  George  Chapman." 

Nevertheless,  three  of  the  six  letters  seek- 
ing release  were  written  by  Chapman.    Two 
he  wrote  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain  and  one 
To  His  Most  Gratious  Majestic: 

"Vouchsafe,  most  excellent  sovereign  to 
take  merciful  notice  of  the  submissive  and 
amendfull  sorrowes  of  your  two  most  humble 
and  prostrated  subjects  for  your  Highnes  dis- 
pleasure, Geo.  Chapman  and  Ben  Jonson, 
whose  chief  offenses  are  but  two  clauses  and 
both  of  them  not  our  owne,  much  less  the  un- 
naturall  issue  of  our  offenceless  intents.  I  hope 
your  Majestie's  universall  knowledge  will 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  383 

daigne  to  remember  that  all  authorities  in  ex- 
ecution of  justice,  especiallie  respects  the  man- 
ners and  lives  of  men  commanded  before  it, 
and  according  to  their  generall  censures  any- 
thinge  that  hath  scapt  them  in  particular 
which  cannot  be  so  disproportionable  that  one 
being  actuallie  good  the  other  should  be  in- 
tentionallie  ill;  if  not  intentionallie  (howso- 
ever it  may  be  subject  to  construcction)  where 
the  whole  founte  of  our  actions  may  be  justi- 
fied from  beinge  in  this  kind  offensive.  I  hope 
the  integrall  parts  will  taste  of  the  same  loyall 
and  dutiful  order  which  to  aspire  from  your 
most  Cesar-like  bounties,  (who  conquered 
still  to  spare  the  conquered  and  was  glad  to  of- 
fences that  he  might  forgive). 

"In  all  dijection  of  never-inough  itterated 
sorrowe  for  your  high  displeasure  and  vowe 
of  as  much  future  delight  as  of  your  present 
anger,  we  cast  our  best  parts  at  your  Highness' 
feet  and  our  worst  to  Hell. 

—  'George  Chapman/' 

It  appears  that  Chapman  underwent  a  sec- 
ond imprisonment  with  Ben  Jonson  shortly 
after  their  release  for  a  supposed  reference  to 
some  person  in  a  play.  We  are  unable  to  as- 


384         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

certain  any  of  the  details  of  Chapman's  life 
unconnected  with  literature.  We  have 
glimpses  of  him  during  his  life  in  London. 
•But  always  in  connection  with  literary  work. 

As  a  further  illustration.  In  1606  the 
French  Ambassador  Beaumont,  writes  to  his 
master:  "I  caused  certain  players  to  be  forbid 
from  acting  "The  History  of  the  Duke  of  Bir- 
on."  When  they  saw,  however,  that  the  whole 
Court  had  left  town  they  persisted  in  acting 
it,  nay,  they  brought  upon  the  stage  the  Queen 
of  France  and  Madame  de  Vernevil,  the  for- 
mer having  first  accosted  the  latter  with  very 
hard  words,  and  gave  her  a  box  on  the  ear.  At 
my  suit  three  of  them  were  arrested  but  the 
principle  person,  (Chapman)  the  author,  es- 
caped." 

Christopher  Marlowe  while  fleeing  from  a 
warrant  issued  by  the  Privy  Council  summon- 
ing him  to  trial  on  the  discovery  of  an  unorth- 
odox paper — in  which  some  real  or  fancied  of- 
fense had  been  detected  calls  on  his  way  (prob- 
ably) to  Deptford  at  the  "harmless  and  pious 
study"  of  his  dear  friend  George  Chapman 
and  persuades  the  elder  poet  to  take  up  and 
continue  the  lover's  tale  of  "Hero  and  Lean- 
der." 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  385 

The  poet  was  not  then  living  who  could 
have  fitly  completed  the  sublime  fragment  of 
Marlowe  "that  can  give  new  splendour  to  the 
genius  of  Milton  and  of  Shelley." 

Chapman's  command  of  English  is  some- 
thing prodigious — great  in  the  descriptive  and 
in  the  simile  and  was  the  fittest  to  take  charge 
of  an  incomparable  fragment.  It  would  have 
been  hard  to  do  better  than  he  has  done.  Chap- 
man's scholarship  cannot  be  gauged  by  his 
translations;  men  of  letters  whether  in  prose 
or  verse  did  not  aim  at  severe  correctness,  fur- 
thermore no  Poet  of  the  age  but  Shakespeare 
has  left  us  so  many  grave  sentences  or  striking 
detacched  thoughts,  so  many  quotable  passages 
of  lofty  eloquence. 

Chapman's  friendships  are  said  to  be  the 
strongest  testimonials  of  his  character — the 
devoted  friend  who  when  he  "loved  once, 
loved  for  a  lifetime." 

And  we  may  add  Chapman's  close  fellow- 
ship is  Marlowe's  best  credential — that  he  was 
a  man  of  good  character.  Let  us  his  posterity 
enshrine  him  who  in  that  "long  gon  time." 
"  *  *  *  moved  such  delight.  That  men 
would  shun  their  sleep  in  still  dark  night  to 
meditate  upon  his  golden  lines." 


386         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

There  is  also  a  copy  extant  of  Chapman's 
memorable  masque  on  the  marriage  of  the 
Palgrave  and  Princess  Elizabeth  corrected  by 
Chapman  in  his  own  hand.  "But  the  errors 
are  few  and  not  very  important.  It  shows  the 
patient  accuracy  of  the  accomplished  writer." 

The  Masque  was  performed  at  Whitehall 
by  the  societies  of  Lincoln's  Inn  and  Middle 
Temple  and  mounted  by  Inigo  Jones,  Sur- 
veyor General  of  the  royal  buildings,  who  was 
employed  in  supplying  the  designs  and  deco- 
rations of  the  Court  masques. 

The  marriage  of  Princess  Elizabeth  took 
place  on  the  14th  of  February,  1613,  three 
months  after  the  death  of  Prince  Henry.  From 
these  ancestors  his  (present)  Majesty  George 
V  derives  his  hereditary  title  to  the  British 
throne. 

There  is  preserved  a  very  fine  copy  of  the 
Hymns  of  Homer,  with  some  presentation 
verse  with  Chapman's  autograph  and  an  alter- 
ation or  two  in  the  engraving  made  with  his 
pen.  The  engraved  title  by  William  Pass  con- 
taining a  portrait  of  Chapman  at  an  advanced 
age.  The  engraving  was  designed,  says  Cole- 
ridge, by  no  vulgar  hand.  "It  is  full  of  spirit 
and  passion."  See  portrait  facing  page  372. 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  387 

There  is  still  extant  a  fine  volume  of  the 
Iliad  of  161 1  in  red  morocco  of  the  period.  At 
the  back  of  the  title  is  in  Chapman's  auto- 
graph, "In  witness  of  his  best  love  so  borne  to 
his  best  deserving  friend,  Mr.  Henrye  Jones. 
George  Chapman  gives  him  theise  fruites  of 
his  best  labors  and  desires  love  betwixt  us  as 
long  lived  as  Homer."  The  corrections  are 
merely  three  or  four  in  the  Preface.  Chap- 
man has  run  his  pen  through  the  word  "plas- 
ters" and  substituted  "plashes." 

And  still  another  interesting  copy,  1608, 
with  Chapman's  autograph  the  "Seven  Books 
of  Homer's  Iliads."  In  1618  Chapman  pub- 
lished his  "Translation  of  Musaeus."  The 
only  known  copy  is  in  the  Bodleian.  It  is 
dedicated  to  his  exceeding  good  friend,  Inigo 
Jones.  He  informs  us  in  his  poem  that  it  is 
a  different  work  to  the  continuation  of  Mar- 
lowe's poem.  In  1618  appeared  The  Georgics 
of  Hesiod  and  is  dedicated  to  Sir  Francis  Ba- 
con, Knight  Lord  High  Chancellor  of  Eng- 
land. It  had  commendatory  verses  to  My 
Worthy  and  Honored  Friend,  Mr.  George 
Chapman,  by  Ben  Jonson  and  Michael  Dray- 
ton. 

Chapman's  personal  character  stood  very 


388         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

high  and  as  a  writer  for  the  stage  he  attained 
great  popularity  in  his  day.  The  writings  of 
his  contemporaries  are  full  of  allusion  to  him. 
Much  is  known  concerning  Chapman's  auth- 
orship of  poems  and  plays  for  the  list  of  pas- 
sages extracted  from  his  writings  in  "Eng- 
land's Parnassus  or  the  Choicest  Flowers  of 
Our  Modern  Poets"  contains  no  less  than 
eighty-one. 

At  the  time  of  this  publication  (1600)  he 
had  published  but  two  plays  and  three  vol- 
umes of  verse.  "The  proud  full  sail  of  his 
great  verse,"  (Chapman's  Homer),  had  not 
at  this  time  been  unfurled.  In  161 1  he  speaks 
of  his  yet  unfinished  translation  of  Homer, 
and  we  are  told  that  the  Prince  of  Wales  had 
commanded  him  to  conclude.  The  entry  in  the 
stationer's  books  is  for  this  year.  But  the  real 
date  of  the  printing  of  the  complete  Iliad  was 
doubtless  the  early  part  of  1612.  In  1616  he 
published  the  Iliads  and  Odysseys  collected 
into  one  volume,  and  then  good  old  George 
could  look  on  his  completed  version  of  Homer 
and  say: 

"The  work  that  I  was  born  to  do  is  done." 
There  are  frequent  entries  in  Henslowe's 
Diary  relating  to  advances  of  money  made  to 


Facsimile  Receipt  for  40s.  paid  for  a  "Pastorial  Ending  in  a 

Tragidy"  from  Chapman  to  Philip  Henslowe. 

British  Museum,  MSS.  3026^. 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  389 

Chapman  as  playwright.  We  have  sampled 
this  one:  On  the  23rd  of  October,  1598,  in  an 
advance  of  £3  to  Mr.  Chapman  on  "his  play 
boocke;"  of  this  date  also  is  the  following 
memorandum  in  Henslowe's  note-book,  (page 
191:) 

"Be  it  known  unto  all  men  by  these  pres- 
ents, that  I,  George  Chapman  of  London,  gen- 
tleman, doe  owe  unto  Mr.  Phillip  Henslowe 
of  the  parish  of  St.  Saviour,  gentleman,  the 
sum  of  X  Xs  of  lawfull  money  of  England. 
In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  sett  my 
hand  this  xxiiij  of  October,  1598.  Geo.  Chap- 


man." 


The  records  contain  many  references  to 
Chapman's  works,  but  this  is  not  a  literary  bi- 
ography, so  our  needs  do  not  require  their 
transcription  for  we  now  have  at  least  the  line- 
aments of  his  character,  his  genuine  self. 

Among  gnomic  poets,  Chapman  is  in  the 
front  rank,  a  great  master  of  English,  a  word 
smith  he  stands  pre-eminent.  "There  are 
many  more  new  words,  says  J.  M.  Robertson 
in  Chapman  than  in  Shakespeare." 

The  death  of  Prince  Henry  is  regarded  as 
the  great  crucial  event  of  modern  times,  for 
it  gave  Charles  the  First  the  right-of-way  to 


390         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

the  British  throne  followed  by  the  servile 
minions  of  despotic  rule  which  marked  the 
beginning  of  the  struggle  against  absolute 
monarchy,  a  death  struggle  between  the  up- 
holders of  royal  prerogative  and  constitution- 
al freedom.  Although  the  pace  had  been  set 
for  the  party  of  passive  obedience  by  King 
James  the  First. 

Chapman  was  patronized  by  Prince  Henry 
that  noble  youth  of  the  royal  line  to  whom  he 
was  appointed  server  in  ordinary  and  appears 
to  have  promised  him  a  pension,  but  he  died 
in  1612,  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  his  age.  His 
Majesty,  the  father  of  this  promising  young 
Prince  was  jealous  of  him,  of  course,  by  con- 
sequence no  laureating  or  patronage  in  the 
Court  of  James  for  his  old  Homeric  tutor  and 
counsellor,  George  Chapman. 

Prince  Henry's  name  is  preserved  in  the 
verses  of  sixteen  poets,  among  them  were 
Chapman,  Jonson,  Webster,  Drayton,  Donne, 
Daniel,  Tounneur,  Browne,  Whither,  Sylves- 
ter, Alexander,  Davies  of  Hereford  and 
Drummond  of  Hawthornden. 

But  not  one  line  of  mournful  elegy  from 
"Shakespeare."  Everything  tends  and  con- 
spires to  strip  this  person  whomsoever  he  was, 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  391 

of  all  literary  work  whatsoever  as  a  self-ac- 
knowledged poet. 

Prince  Henry  expired  just  before  midnight 
on  the  Sth  of  November,  1612.  In  the  passing 
of  this  youth  at  nineteen,  of  truly  striking  and 
rare  promise  so  fervent  in  his  friendship  for 
Sir  Walter  Raleigh  in  his  prison  under  sen- 
tence of  death,  and  often  said  "that  no  man 
but  his  father  would  keep  such  a  bird  in  such 
a  cage." 

Prince  Henry  dies,  than  which,  says  Gros- 
art,  "no  death  since  Sidney's  had  so  moved  the 
heart  of  the  nation  as  none  evoked  such  splen- 
did sorrow  from  England's  foremost  names — 
with  one  prodigious  exception  and  the  one 
prodigious  exception  is  Shakespeare." 

So  warm  in  his  love  and  admiration  for 
George  Chapman,  "The  Prince's  Sweet  Hom- 
er," teacher  and  counsellor,  who  in  one  of  his 
poems,  the  dedication  of  the  Iliad  to  Prince 
Henry  poured  forth  the  exaltation  of  his  own 
great  art  in  his  sublimest  strain  in  such  lines 
as  these: 

"Free  sufferance  for  the  truth  makes  sor- 
row sing, 

And  mourning  far  more  sweet  than  ban- 
queting." 


392         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

The  Prince's  death  gave  the  good  old  poet 
a  fiercer  pang  than  any  he  had  felt  through 
years  of  struggle,  well  nigh  of  hunger — now 
feeling  that  the  "pleasures  of  hope"  were  cut 
off  by  death  of  his  only  patron  of  the  house  of 
Stuart,  the  most  magnanimous  of  them  all. 
"To  all  times  future  this  times  mark  extend 
Homer  no  patron  found  nor  Chapman 
friend." 

Chapman's  long  life  (1559-1634)  over- 
spread the  whole  of  the  Elizabethan  Age  of 
literature.  His  life  began  in  advance  of  that 
golden  age,  before  the  dawn  of  English  trag- 
edy, with  the  rising  sun  of  Marlowe,  and  lived 
to  see  it  decline  into  a  long  and  mellow  even- 
tide which  Shirley,  "the  last  of  a  great  age" 
failed  to  stay.  One  of  the  most  learned  men  of 
his  age,  profoundly  imbued  with  the  Greek 
militant  spirit,  and  of  its  earliest  and  most  he- 
roic inspirations,  he  best  knew  how  to  make 
Homer  speak  English.  He  gives  a  picture  of 
Achilles  and  Ulysses  full  of  life  and  action. 
"There  did  shine  a  beam  of  Homer's  soul  in 
mine."  This  was  the  sovereign  labour  of  his 
life, — a  work  which  had  won  for  him  immor- 
tality. 

But  before  there  had  wailed  a  dirge  for 


SHAKESPEARE  THE  MASTER-MIND  393 

Chapman.  His  life-long  friends,  Marlowe, 
Beaumont,  Drayton  and  Fletcher  had  in  suc- 
cession "passed  the  ivory  gates."  All  these 
heirs  to  immortal  fame  he  outlived  on  earth- 
George  Chapman  deserves  a  cenotaph  in 
Westminster  Abbey,  where  his  illustrious 
friends  lie  or  are  commemorated.  But  it  is  to 
be  regretted  also,  that  the  walls  of  the  old  Ab- 
bey do  not  enclose  all  that  is  mortal  of  John 
Fletcher,  "in  their  tender  and  solemn  gloom." 
Why  should  not  the  same  roof  cover  all  that  is 
mortal  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  "Twin 
Stars"  who  in  the  morning  of  life  had  shared 
its  hopes  and  aspirations;  their  names  are  in- 
divisible, why  not  their  dreamless  dust  thence- 
forward and  forevermore. 

In  May,  1634,  now  nearly  three  centenaries 
of  years  ago,  in  old  St.  Giles  Churchyard, 
"Chapman's  revered  ashes  were  rudely  min- 
gled with  the  vulgar  dust."  But  strange  as  it 
may  seem  William  Habington's  wish  ex- 
pressed in  terms  of  filial  veneration  was  never 
realized — no  room  is  found  "in  the  warm 
Church  to  build  him  up  a  tomb." 


394         SHAKESPEARE,  THE  PERSONAL  PHASE 

A  MASTER  SPIRIT— PORTRAIT  OF  HIMSELF 

Give  me  a  spirit  that  on  life's  rough  sea, 
Loves  to  have  his  sails  filled  with  a  lusty  wind, 
E'en  till  his  sail-yards  tremble  his  mast  crack, 
And  his  wrapt  ship  runs  on  her  side  so  low, 
That  she  drinks  water,  and  her  keel  ploughs 

air, 

There  is  no  danger  to  a  man  that  knows 
What  life  and  death  is:  there's  not  any  law 
Exceeds  his  knowledge;  neither  is  it  lawful 
That  he  should  stoop  to  any  other  law: 
He  goes  before  them,  and  commands  them  all, 
That  to  himself  is  a  law  rational. 

— Chapman. 


Chapman's  Tomb  in  St.  Giles'  Church. 


INDEX 


Addenbroke,  John,   136,   138. 

Aesop,   221. 

Alleyn,  Edward,  129,   130,   195,   234. 

Archer,   Francis,   250. 

Ardeu,   Mary,   106. 

Aubrey,  John,   185,   250. 


Bacon,  Sir  Francis,  25,   279,   387. 

Bagehot,  Walter,  15. 

Barnard,  Sir  John,  127. 

liar nu in,   Phineas   T.,   225. 

Beaumont,  Francis,  5,  12,  23,  31,  32,  199,  203,  241. 

Bellet,  H.  H.  L.,  22. 

Bellott,  Stephen,   86,   155,   162. 

Belvolr,   18,    19,    72. 

Bentley,  Dr.,  226. 

Betterton,  Thomas,  79,  112. 

Biamarck,   Prince,   125. 

Bodelian  Library,  103,   126,   387. 

Bodley,  Sir  Thomas,  102,   371. 

Bo iv ia,  Richard,   322. 

Brown,  Sir  Thomas,  224,  226. 

Browne,  William,   376,   390. 

Bunyan,  John,  296,  303. 

Burbage,  Cuthbert,  119,  120,  230,,  231,  232. 

Burbage,  Richard,  18,  97,   119,  129,  130,  171. 

Burke,  Edmoml,  223,   246. 

Bnrleigh,  Lord,  170. 

Burnet,  Gilbert,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,   192. 

Burns,  Robert,  282,   298. 

Burton,  Robert,  126,  293. 


Cainden,  William,  24,  104,   241,   249. 

Carew,  Thomas,  244. 

Castle,  E.  J.  K.  C.,  96. 

Chambrun,  The  Countess  de,  37,  38,  309. 

Chapman,   George — The   Translatior   of  Homer,   372,    375,    376 

377. 
Conjecturally   connected   with    Shakespeare   as   his    rival 

(in   Sonnets   80-86   "A  better   Spirit"),   373. 
A  Poet  much  admired  by  great  men,  197,  198,  200,  377. 
It  is  in  his  translation  that  the  Homeric  poems  are  best 

read  as  an  English  Work,  243,  267,  377,  378,  392. 
His   command   of   English   is   something  prodigious,    378, 

385. 
As  a  writer  for  the   Stage  he  attained  great  popularity 

in  his  day,  209,  279. 

There  is  no  scantiness  of  information  about  him  of  the 
literary  sort,  203,  241,  374,  375. 

395 


396  INDEX 


Suffered  from  repression,  370,  383. 

Imprisoned  with  Ben  Jonson  for  reflections  on  the  Kings 
thirty  pound  carpet  Knights  of  Scottish  birth — in 
"Eastward  Hoe",  169,  380. 

He  was  among  the  few  men  whom  Ben  Jonson  said  he 
loved,  267,  374. 

His  letter  to  King  James  the  First,  382,   383. 

His  fellowship  with  Marlowe — had  a  profound  admira- 
tion for,  363,  384,  385. 

His  Autograph  and  Facsimile  Receipt,  389. 

His  appreciation  of  his  mother-tongue,  373. 

Familiar  with  several   languages,   389. 

The  most  Sententious  of  poets,  391, 

"That  Old  Man  Eloquent,"  392. 
Charles  First.  192,   380,   389. 

Chettlc,  Henry,  91,  93,  96,  231,  282,  284,  299,   350,  351,  362. 
Clarendon,  Earl  of,  276. 
Clayton,  John,  134,   137. 

Coke,  Edward,  Lord  Chief  Justice,  25,  42,  59. 
Coleridge,  S.  T.,  243. 

ColliuiH.   Churton,   13,   14,   285,   294,   297. 
Collier,  J.  P.,  287,   311. 

Combe,  John — the  usurious  money-lender,   45,  46. 
Combe,  Thomas,  his  heir,   47.   55,   64,   65. 
Combe,  William,  37,  42,  44,  48,  73,  75,  86. 
Condall,  Henry,  129,   170. 
Cook,  Dr.  James,  109. 

Coolbrith,   Ina — Poet   Laureate   of   California,    300. 
Corporation   Stratford   Records,   45,   77. 
Cromwell,  Oliver,  3,  31. 


Dance — Scene,    321. 

Daniel,   Samuel,   6,   185,   203,   377. 

D'Avenant,   Sir  William,  168,  169. 

Davis,   Cushman   K.,   341. 

Day,  John,  267. 

Dekker,  Thoma«,  197,  198,  243,  251. 

Derby,  Earl  of,  193. 

!>c  thick.   Sir   William,   132. 

Diuus.   Leonard,  160. 

Donations  of  Constantlne,  228. 

Donne,  Dr.  John,   24,   267. 

Dowland,  John,  323. 

Drake,  Sir  Francis.  25. 

Drayton,  Michael,  5,  12,  104,  161,  162,  164,  170,  190,  387. 

Druminond,   \Villhnii  of  Hawthornden,   126,   162,   243,   245,   246, 

248,  390. 

Dryden,  John,  340. 
Dyce,  Dr.,  134. 

E 

"Eastward   Hoe,"  16.   17. 
Elizabeth,  Queen,  6,  7,  21,   31,   55,   380. 
Kl  IN!  more.  Lord,  122. 
Elton,  Charles  tl.   <  .,  111. 
Emerson,  R.  W.,  12,   29,   134,   164. 
Epitaph,  33. 
Essex,  Earl  of,  5,  6,  19,  170. 


Farmer,  Dr.,  131. 
Field,  Nathaniel,  310. 


INDEX  397 


Fleay,  Dr..  96,  185,  318. 

Fletcher,  John,  13,   23,   31,   186,   203,   241. 

Florio,  John,    125. 

Ford,  John,  24,   31,   241. 

Forman,  Dr.   Simon,  28. 

Francis,  Sir  Philip,  223. 

Franklin,  Ben,   303. 

Fuller,  Thomas,   201,   202. 

Fume**,  Dr.,   14,   334. 

G 

Greene,  Robert — His  partiality  to  "The  Man  with  the  Hoe," 

291,    302. 

His   democratic   sympathies,    283,   292,   301. 
The  purity  of  his  writings,   281,  289,   296. 
He  never  prostituted  his  pen  to  courseness,  297,   298. 
He  appealed  to  the  better  class  of  readers,  303. 
He  was  supreme  in  prose  romance,  292. 
A   born   story-teller,   300. 

His  versatility  and  quickness  in  composition,  303. 
His  literary  fame,   288. 

He  was  the  popular  author  of  the  day,  292,  300. 
His  gracious  types  of  womanhood,  295,  298,  299. 
The  salutory  effect  of  his  methods  of  warfare  with  the 

criminal  classes,   289,  290. 

With  him  rank  is  never  the  measure  of  merit,  302. 
"Not  lip-holy,"   290. 

He  was  given  to  self-upbraiding,   296,   300. 
He  fell  a  prey  to  strong  drink,  282,  283. 
His  character  as  usually  framed  by  the  critic, '282,   284, 

289,   298,   307. 
His   opprobrious   Shake-scene  not  Shakespeare,   308,   309, 

313,   314,  315,  316,  317,  22,   330. 
He   counsels   his   friends   to   give    up    Play   Writings — as 

degrading,    318. 

He  was  one  of  the  founders  of  English  fiction,   285. 
The  great  commercial  value  of  his  name,  288. 
Greene,  Thomas — Represents  the  townsmen  of  Stratford-on- 
Avon    in    their   struggle   with    Combe,   Manwaring   and 
Shakspere    (the   "Vandals"    of   1614-18)    the   three  par- 
ties acting   in   unison   in   an   attempted  enclosure   of  a 
large   part   of  the  adjacent  Common   fields,   41,    47,   48, 
49,  63,  71,  75,  77,  160. 

Greenwood,    Sir    George    G. — His    work    "Is    There    a    Shake- 
speare Problem?"  cited,  82,  310. 
Great   Unknown,  The,  366. 
Greys  Inn,  279. 

Groats  Worth  of  Wit,  92,  96,  348,  349. 
Grosart,  Dr.  A. — On  Prince  Henry's  Death,  333,   391. 
Garrick,  David,   122. 
Gauden,  John,  Bishop  of  Exeter,  192. 

H 

Hahlngton,  William,   393. 

Hale,   Sir   Matthew,   226. 

Hall,  Elizabeth,  127,   128,   164. 

Hall,  Dr.  John — Shakspere's   son-in-law,   34,   71,   76,   109,   133, 

160,   163,  164. 

Hall,  William — an  Oxford  graduate,   36. 
Hallam,   Henry,   12,    134,    164. 
Halliwell,  Phillipps,  35,  37,  53,  111,  129. 


398  INDEX 


Hammer,  Sir  Thoir.as,  SOS. 

Hamlet,    9,    315. 

Hart,  Joan,  127. 

Hat  ha  way,  Allies,   66,   113. 

Hathaway,  Anne,  66,   111,   112,   113,  128. 

IIn11.avi ay,  Richard,  113. 

Hattoii,  Lord  Chancellor,  25. 

Harvey,  Gahrlel,  292,   293,   294,  297. 

HeminxH,  .John,  129,   170,   231. 

Henslowe  Blary,   195,   196,   216,   234. 

Henslovve,  Philip,   195,   216,    233,   234,   235. 

High   Commission,  The  Court  of,  6. 

Henry,  Prince,  31,   379,   386,   389,   390,   391. 

Herald   College,   12,   131. 

Herrlck,  Robert,   296. 

Heylin,   Peter,   195. 

Heywood,  ThomaN,  198,  217,  219,  220. 

Heywood,   Sir  John,   6. 

Hobbes,  ThomaN,   203,   241. 

Homer,   3,   10,   30,   73,   88,   387. 

Howell,  James,  241,   243,   244,   280. 

HiKlihroN,   15. 


Ingleby,  Dr.,  203,  218,  338. 
Inner  Temple,  22,   279. 
Irving,  Sir  Henry,  171. 
Irving,  Washington,  40. 


Jagjerard,  William,  217. 

Jinn I»M  The  First — Prefers  his  own  writings,  55,  104,  267,  280, 

380,  381. 

George  Chapman's  letter  to,  382,   383. 
His   Demonology,   380. 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  361. 
Jones,  Inigo — Great  confidence  placed  in,  268,  278. 

He    was    employed    in    arranging    the    scenery    for    the 
masques  of  Beaumont,  Chapman  and  Ben  Jonson,  386, 
387. 
JohimeiiN    Factotum — (See    Robert    Greene    "A    Groatsworth 

of  Wit.") 

Johnson,  Dr.  Samuel — lexicographer  and  critic,  247,   309. 
Jonsou,  Ben — He  was  born  to  poor  condition  in  London,  249, 

309. 

Educated  at  Westminister  School,   249. 
He  served  as  a  Soldier  in  Flanders,  250. 
His  appearance,  242,  243,  279. 
Not  sensitive,  280. 
Quarrels    with   Marston    Deekker   and    Inigo    Jones,    243, 

251,   270. 

A  combatant  in  the  "War  of  the  Theatres,"  209,  210. 
Ridiculed   for   including   plays   among   his   "Works,"    198. 
Strong  in   his   friendships  and   enmitys,   241,   251,   252. 
Never  would  let  "Sleeping  dogs  rest,"  254. 
His  poverty,   249,   269,  280. 
Forced  to  sell  library,  255,  268. 
In    the    days    of   his    adversity,    wrote    mendieant    epistle 

for  bread,  281. 

Vilification  and  commendation  of  brother  poets,  244,  265. 
Ridicules  Drayton  and  Shakespeare,  266,  267,  271,  272,  275. 
His  literary  compliments  are  to  be  received  with  sus- 


INDEX  399 


picion,   247,   274,   275. 
Spake  disparagingly  of  Beaumont  and  Shakespeare,   256, 

257,   270,   273. 
His   competency   and   credibility   as   a   witness,    245,    246, 

247,  257,   264,   273. 
Notes  of  his  conversations  recorded  by  Drummond,   248, 

265,    266,    267. 

Who  leaves  the  impress  of  his  individuality,   242,  254. 
The  mass  of  literary  detail  respecting  him,  254,  278. 
Compared  with  the  trifles  and  non-literary  matter  of  no 

consequence  that  we  know  of  Shakspere,   242,  245. 
His  allusion  to  Elizabeth  Countess  of  Rutland,  252,  253, 

276,  277. 
He  collected  a  library  rich  in  scarce  and  valuable  books. 

In  this  particular  how  unlike  Shakspere,   254,   255. 
The  superiority  of  literary  reputation,   242,   254. 
He  united  in  a  comedy   "Eastward   Hoe"  with  Chapman 
and  Marston  and  was  sent  to  prison,  252,  253. 
His  allusions  to  Shakespeare,  251,  258,  259,  261,  272,  273. 
Junius   Letters,   192,   222,   223. 
Jusseraud,  J.  J.  and  Robert  Greene,  344. 

K 

Keats,  John,  378. 

Keets,   Francis,   360. 

Kemp,  William   (Will),  119,  205,  208,   311,  313,  314,  322,  327. 

Kind  Hearts   Dreams,   347,    348. 

Kirk,   Edward    (E.  K.),   189, — E.   K. — 195,    180. 

Kyd,  Thomas,  213,  318,  319,  320. 


Lamb,   Charles,   243. 

Lainer,  Sidney,  14. 

Landor,    Walter    Savage,    197. 

Lang,  Andrew,  11,  13,  14,  96,  123,  124,  128,  137,  205,  309,  310, 

365. 

Lee,  Jane,   186. 

Lee,  Sir  Sidney,  13,   14,  91,  111,   167,   203. 
Lincoln,  Abraham,  139,   303. 
Lincoln  Inn,  279. 
Lodge,  Thomas,  190,   195,   354. 
Lombard,  Peter,  6,   7. 
London,   76. 
Lowell,  James  II.,  185. 
Lucy,  Sir  Thomas,  79,  116,  117,  118,  125. 


llabie.   Hamilton  Wright,   309. 

Macauley,   Lord,   223. 

Middle  Temple,  22,   28,   63,   279. 

31ainwarin§;,  Arthur — one  of  the  riators  confederated  with 
Combe  brothers  and  William  Shakspere  in  an  at- 
tempted enclosure  of  the  Common  fields,  42,  53,  55, 
85,  87. 

Malom,   Edmond— quoted,   91,   309,   369. 

Manuinghain,  Joint — diarist  records  anecdote  of  Shakspere, 
23,  24,  28,  171,  235. 

Marlowe,  Christopher — Was  on  terms  of  intimate  friendship 

with   Chapman,   385. 

Suffered  from  repression,  282,  320,  321. 
His  imputed  atheism,  359,  360,  361. 


400  INDEX 


His  Violent  end  of  life  with  a  foreknowledge  of  his  un- 
timely death  at  the  stake  —  was  his  death  self-admin- 
istered? or  was  he  slain  by  a  serving-man  one  Fran- 
cis Archer,  which? 

Miller,   Joaquin,  —  California   poet,    300. 

Marston,  John,  169,   190,   243,   267,   268. 

Mantson,   Prof.   David  —  on   Shakespeare's  reticense,   102. 

Markham,  Edwin  —  American   poet,   282. 

Martin,   Marprilate  —  a  Mask-name,    292. 

Manque  of  the  Middle  Temple  and   Lincoln's  Inn,  386. 

Meres,  Francis,  180,  181,  182,  184,  185,  288,  298. 

Mermaid  Tavern  —  Ben  at.   241. 

Merton  College  Oxford,   167. 

Mlddilton,   Thomas,    25,    267. 

Milton,  John,  32,   41,   196,   299,   378. 

Minto,  Prof.  William,   373. 

Montesquieu,    192. 

Mountjoy,  Christopher,  Wig-maker  —  Prof.  Wallace  on,  86, 
137!  157. 

Mollere    (Jean   Baptiste   Poquelin),    191. 

Mulcaster,   Richard,   109. 

Munday,  Anthony,  310. 


Nash,  Thomas  —  Poet  on  informers,  196,  206,  212,  280,  297,  299, 

354,   365. 
Nash,   Thomas  —  marries    Elizabeth   Hall    the   grand-daughter 

of  William  Shakspere,  127. 
Nicholas,  Cardinal   de   Cusa, 
Nine   Days    Wonder,    327. 
Norwich  —  Kemp    at,    322. 
Northumberland,  Earl  of,  356. 


Outlines,  Holltwell-Phillipp's 

Overhury,   Sir   Thomas — Horribly    murdered    by   poison    Lady 

Essex  and  James  The  First  being  the  instigators,  343, 

381. 
Ovid — poet  and  a  canon  lawyer,  103,  104. 


Peele,  George,  19,  93,  185,  310,  351,   357. 

Pembrook,    Countess    of,    33. 

Pembrook,  Earl  of,  16,   19,   232,   231,   230. 

Phillips,   Augustine,    122. 

Poe.  Edgar  Allen,   282,   298. 

Pope,  Alexander,   308. 

Privy    Council,   6,    74. 

Public   Record   Office,   87. 

Puritans,  41. 

Pym,  John,  24. 


Quiney,  Richard,  121. 

Quiney,  Thomas,  127,   133,   137. 

Qjuincy,  Thomas,  109,   223. 


INDEX  401 


Raleigh,   Sir  Walter,   25,   170,    190,   381,   391. 

ItipliiiKltnm — Combe's  agent,   44,   48. 

Richard  II,  6,   7,   8,   216. 

Robertson,  J.  M.,  14,   15,   137,   389. 

Rogers,  Philip,   135,   137. 

Rathwuy,  Uiohard,  330. 

Ro*ve.   Nicholas,   68,   79,   83,   112,   168,   308. 

Rowly,  William,   310,    330. 

Rutland,  Countess  of,  16,   276. 

Rutland.  Karl  of,  14,  276. 

It  utter,  Joseph,  274. 


Salisbury,  Earl  of,  369. 
Scot,  Reginald,   226,   380. 
Scott,  Sir  Walter,  343. 
Selden  John,  25,   102,   103,   104,   226,   241. 
Shagrsper,  Willm,  111,   112. 
Shake-rage,   95,   322. 

Shake-scene,  92,   94,   95,   284,   308,   314,   317. 

Shake-Speare  Shakespeare — the  author  of  the  Plays  a  psen- 
donymous  Name  first  assumed  in  connection  with  the 
Poems  in  1593 — in  connection  with  the  Plays  in  1598 — 
and  in  connection  with  the  Sonnets  in  1609,  17,  19,  77, 
80,  101,  179,  180,  185,  186,  233,  262,  268,  299,  304. 
Cannot  be  identified  with  Shakspere  the  Stratford  Play- 
er, 187,  188. 

"The  Poet" — was  anxious  to  mask  his  identity  under  the 
name  "Shakespeare"  a  pseudonym,  why?  Was  he  a 
man  of  rank  or  of  high  position  in  society?  189,  200, 
201,  203,  219,  234. 

Not  attack  by  Robert  Greene,  91,  92,  93. 
Shake-scene  not  allusion  to,  92. 
Ben  Jonson's   allusion   to,   259,   268. 

Chettle  supposed  allusion  cannot  be  a  reference  to,  96. 
Not  a  single  commendatory  verse  was  addressed  to  the 
Poet  on    the  production  or  publication  of  any   of  the 
Shakespeare  Plays,  189,  31,  32. 
His  vocabulary   (see  the  Literary  Aspect),   179. 
A  Summary — of  some  of  the  negative  pregnants,  229,   203. 
Such   as  the  silence  of  Ben  Jonson  not  so  much   as   the 
least  commentary  upon  the  Author  of  the  Plays  until 
the  Stratford  Player  had  lain  for  years  in  the  grave, 
23,   203. 

Also  the  silence  of  the  diarest  Maningham,  27,  28,  235. 
The  Silence  of  Sir  Thomas  Bodley,  102. 
The  Silence  of  John  Selden,  25,  203. 
The  Silence  of  Inigo  Jones,  203. 
The  Silence  of  Philip   Henslowe,   395,   234,   235. 
The  Silence  of  Edward  Alleyn,   234,   235. 
The  Silence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  23,  31,  203. 
The   Silence   of  Chapman,    202,   203. 
The  Silence  of  Drayton,   202,  203. 

Shakspere,  William — "Him  who  sleeps  by  Avon,"  4,  5,  10,  11. 
His  parentage,  104. 
Stratford-on-Avon    His    Supposed    Birthplace,    101.    105 

122,    124,    125,    128. 
His   Baptism — And   Nurture,    105. 

Was  he  sent  to  school  in  boyhood?  his  biographers  un- 
able to  tell,  107,  108,  109,  110. 


402  INDEX 


Known  Facts  of  his  life,  121,  122,  142,  159,  171. 

His    improvident    and    irregular    marriage,    105,    110,    111, 

He  hikes  'to  London,   117,   118. 

An    actor,    205,   213,   218,    225,    229,    230,    231,    232,   245,    251, 

261,  262. 

Lived   apart   from   his   wife   and   children,    130. 
A  sojourner  for  many  years  in  the  house — shop  of  a  wig- 
maker,   86,   one  Mountjoy   in   Silver   Street,   London,    143, 

149. 

Was  a  witness  for  the  plaintiff  in   the  case — Bellott  vs. 
Mountjoy.      His    testimony    of    little   value    to    the    party 

calling  him  or  to  the  Court  of  Requests,  146,  148,  150, 

151,  152,  158. 

Speculation  in  Real  Estate,   121. 

His  harsh  treatment  of  debtors,  137,  138,  139,  140,  141. 
His  litigious  striving,  134,  135,  136,  140. 
Conduct  in  money  affairs,  160,  163,  121,  134,  157. 
Becomes  very  wealthy,   108,   110. 
His   arrogant   defiance   of  public   interest   shown   by   his 

persistent   invasion   of   popular   rights,   44,    61. 
Was  one  of  the  men  who  sought  the  oppression   of  the 

townfolks  by  his  attempt  to  seize  the  common  lands — 

whom    the    Lord    Chief-Justice    Sir    Edward    Coke    de- 
clared from  the  bench  "defied  the  law  of  the  realm," 

41,  42,  43,  53,  54,  55,  56,  57,  74,  85. 

TTie  execrative  epitaph  cut  on  his  tomb  is  a  criminating 
memorial  of  his  attempt  to  gain  possession  of  the 
Stratford  Common  lands,  34,  35,  36,  37,  38,  39,  40,  41, 

42,  75,  76,  77. 

Was    charged    with     obtaining    "heraldic"     honours     by 

fraudulent  representation,   5,   131,   132. 
As   a  player  takes   unimportant  parts   in   what   are   now 

termed   the   "heavy  business,"   119,   120,   123,   205. 
His    literary    contemporaries    had    no    conception    of    the 
actors  intellectual  supremacy  if  such  he  possessed,  103, 
125,    126,    127,   128,    129,   144,   145,   163,    164,   165,   172,    200, 
103. 

Was  one  of  "those  deserving  men  and  one  of  the  part- 
ners in  the  profits  of  that  they  call  the  House"  119,  120. 
His  readiness  to  engage  with  Richard  Burbage  to  work 
at    the    Earl    of   Rutland's,  frevolans    device  ."impreso" 
in   1613    for  the   small  sum   of  44s,   three  years   before 
his  death,   18,   19- 
The   spelling   of   his   name   not   Spear-Shaking,    105,    142, 

143,   188. 

Never  assumed  the   name   of   "Shakespeare"    or  the   hy- 
phenated  Shake-Speare,    143. 
Does   not   claim   the    "Shakespeare   Plays,"    9. 
And  his  daughters,  illiteracy,  108,  109. 
The  bust  in  the  Stratford  Church  the  most  trustworthy 

physical  presentment  of,   159,   160. 
His  Will,  63,  63,  66,   170. 
Death  and  burial  of. 
Shakspere,  John,  106,   126. 
Shakspere,  Judith,  108,   109,   126,   133. 
Shakspere,   Susanna.   109. 
Sheavyn,  Phoebe,   310. 
Shirley,  James,  25,   241. 

Sidney,   Elizabeth,   Countess   of   Rutland,    276. 
Sidney,  Sir  Philip,   24,    82,   267. 

Southampton,  Earl  of,  26,  165,  167,  168,  170,  172,  173,  174. 
Speddingr,   James,    186,    203. 
Spencer,  Edmund,  5,   170,   189,   241,   267,   294. 


INDEX  403 


Star  Chamber,   6,   54,    169. 

Stevens,   George,   83,    84. 

Stopes,  Mrs.  C.  C.,  18,   71,  72. 

Stevenson,    Mr.,    72. 

Stratford   Bust    (see   Frontispiece). 

Swift,   Dean,   291. 

Swinburne,  Algernon  Charles,  27. 

Symouds,   J.    A.,    32. 


Taft,   William    Howard,   361. 

Tarleton,  Richard  the  player,  311,  321. 

Tell,   William,    226,    227. 

Taylor,  John,   267. 

Thwaites,    Sdward,    36. 

Tyrwhltt,  Thomas,   93,   308,   309. 


U 

Upstart,  Crow,   92,   95. 


Venus   and    Adonis,    165,    214. 
Voltaire    (Francis   Aronet),   191. 

W 

AVallace,  Dr.  Charles  William — his  Shakspere  discoveries,  19, 

52,  86,   87,   135,   136,  156,   137,   158,  159,   161,   162. 
Wheler    Collection,    the — Stratford-on-Avon    1806,    41. 
White,  R.  G.,  139. 
Wilkins,  eorge,   155. 

Webster,  John,   197,    198,   199,   200,   390. 
Welcombe,   45,   53,   55. 
Whateley,  Anna,  111. 

W'riathesley,  Henry,  Karl  of  Southampton,  5,   25,   165,   381. 
Wilson,  Woodrow,   279. 

Wilson,  Robert   Senior,   310,   311,   313,   314,   330,   371. 
Wood.   Anthony,   376. 
Worburton,  Bishop,  309. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


°cr  1 3 


LD  21A-50m-8,'61 
(Cl795slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YC   14804 


416427 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


